༡ᒣ኱ᏛゝㄒᏛ◊✲ࢭࣥࢱ࣮⚾❧኱Ꮫᡓ␎ⓗ◊✲ᇶ┙ᙧᡂᨭ᥼஦ᴗ

ࠗゝㄒẚ㍑࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ⤫ㄒ⌮ㄽࡢᅜ㝿ඹྠ◊✲࠘

ᖹᡂ 20 ᖺᗘࠥᖹᡂ 24 ᖺᗘ◊✲ᡂᯝሗ࿌᭩

ᖹᡂ㸰㸳ᖺ㸳᭶Ꮫᰯἲேྡ Ꮫᰯἲே༡ᒣᏛᅬ
኱Ꮫྡ༡ᒣ኱Ꮫ◊✲⤌⧊ྡ ༡ᒣ኱ᏛゝㄒᏛ◊✲ࢭࣥࢱ࣮◊✲௦⾲⪅ ᩪ⸨ ⾨(ேᩥᏛ㒊ே㢮ᩥ໬Ꮫ⛉ᩍᤵ)

$  ĆċåêDbFd$Å§ĥÂ2*ºėèã#ā2Ħ§Ĝ#åê
U`B6=LĆċÎđ"ñċÚČ#ğvåê2j'Å$
2006~2007 §ª"ĝlĜºåêèĆċè¡·ºėèãĤ}/ĝ¸ú5OA3J4T(ĝ GP) #kÊÒ 8  (ĆċĢ$?
bT^HBA7N@PJ4:HLÓûEFLQ5K]RdM) @bEdA3
Y2óðåêèâ#ěĎÛad=A\HU#ětÛ#rzåê³¢!
2vþ'ÅåêU`B6=L$#¸úU`>]Y#±Ç2«òÈ#åê÷*"Ċï!ĆċÎđ"ñċČ,%ĆċØ­Č#åê2ĕþ'
 våê$¾¦á" e-mail ë2qÜþ10'¿"Ġhá!ćď2âáuěU`B6=Lcad=A\HU2 18 ět'Ò-#~÷

$ 27  (Õ 8 3Z^: 7 5bM 4 5F^3 4 ġ9]bGV_<dCW5b 1 ) "à.Ñß!ďČ!0''5 §#Ĝ"@`;[3Y+ĎÖo*¹ět'25 "&@`;[3Y#ßĀ÷$Ò
-# 21  (3Z^: 10 5<^C 5 ģÔ 2 M5I 2 S]bCV_<d 1 ) 2(' ÁËă"æ0/,"ÅU`B6=L2ēĈÌĔ{ĞÙĐéÙĐÖì#pÜąĘºÐÉºõėÌĔĆċØ­"Ė¯ë#JdX"

/À#±Ç2­/'±Ç$17 #w

åê÷",')-0#eė$Í§ªÄ"ßþ/ Nanzan Linguistics 59"uĀ'U`B6=LÃĜh"åê÷uĀüÁcČº#eĄ$åêÊöeĄ"^CL.'U`B6=L|"$¾Åċm#3B3čĆċ

#Îđ2h®"U`B6=L2ĕþ'#ÃĜ#±Ç2nĀ/Čº 10ô2²ČºĠ Japanese Syntax in Comparative Perspective 2013 §ªh"
9H=CS8dMx×o-yþ0'ÅÁ"$,.©í!ÎđåêÚČåê2þU`B6=L¬#nĀá!Čº 17 ô2´Ē' ÅU`B6=L#ĕþ"#½"$¹#Òåê}÷"~Å#kù

gĉ"!.'#2s.¸úcåê¶µk#¤ÝäîÏýÝiÏĆċåêDbFd#h¥îÏ£Æ¨ÏĂÝøÏ¼ęÚ°Ï
"

ç2Þf'
2013 § 3 Â 31 ¾ĆċåêDbFdĚ
»ý ÿ



 !


 




......................................................................................................................... 19" $ ................................................................................................................ 55







 

#.......................... 1

1 Nanzan Linguistics 8  ............................................................. 93

On the Calculus of Control and Lack of Overt Agreement Morphology(Yokohama National University)....................................................... 95
Tomohiro Fujii (Yakohama
Towards a Theory of Split Binding: A Preliminary Sketch
Nao Ishino and Hiroyuki Ura (Kwansei Gakuin University) .................................... 111
On the Event Argument and Anti-Quantifier Zutsu in Japanese
Yoichi Miyamoto (Osaka University) ...................................................................... 141
Three Types of the “Overgenerated No” in the Acquisition ofJapanese Noun Phrases
Keiko Murasugi, Tomomi Nakatani and Chisato Fuji
(Nanzan University and University of Connecticut)................................................. 163
Numeral Classifiers, Plural/Collective Elements, and Nominal Ellipsis
Masao Ochi (Osaka University)............................................................................... 183
Case Checking/Valuation in Japanese: Move, Agree or Merge?
Mamoru Saito (Nanzan University) ......................................................................... 203
Two Notes on Multiple Sluicing in Chinese and Japanese
Daiko Takahashi and Sichao Lin (Tohoku University)............................................. 223
Pseudo-Right Dislocation and the Bare-Topic Construction in Japanese
Kensuke Takita (JSPS/Tohoku University).............................................................. 241 2  Nanzan Linguistics 9  
 ......................................................... 267

Notes on the ‘Argument Transfer’ Problem for Configurational -Theory
Tomohiro Fujii (Yokohama National University) .................................................... 269
Case, Tense, and Subject Raising in Japanese
Hideki Kishimoto (Kobe University) ....................................................................... 289
On the Unavailability of NP-Ellipsis with Japanese Relative Clauses
Yoichi Miyamoto (Osaka University) ...................................................................... 319
Steps in the Emergence of Full Syntactic Structure in Child Grammar
Keiko Murasugi (Nanzan University) ...................................................................... 353
Conditions on Japanese Phrase Structure: From Morphology to Pragmatics
Mamoru Saito (Nanzan University) ......................................................................... 387
Argument Ellipsis in Acquisition
Koji Sugisaki (Mie University)................................................................................ 415
Argument Ellipsis in Japanese and Malayalam
Daiko Takahashi (Tohoku University)..................................................................... 441
Movement of Antecedents and Minimality
Yuji Takano (Kinjo Gakuin University)................................................................... 461
On (Im)possible N’-Deletion within PPs
Kensuke Takita and Nobu Goto (Mie University).................................................... 483









#  $̓  š ǴȕÉĭ̜̜ ĒŹšŅ̔  Ř šĭ̜̜ ĒŹŘš           ̜ ʡʲšɍɛ°³                     ̕  ɍ ɛɭɻĭ̜̖   ®wƪņŇ̜ƤɌɊĭĢŵſǙĶďŹ˟ȼ "         ̗  ɍ ɛ®wĭ̜ʡʲȎˇXōR>ɰʲȵʸZń˵ðĬɍɛ̘  ɍ ɛʞȨ̜ɍɛƲȨqƏƨHmɍɛ̙  ɍ ɛÎʔʀɍɛÎʔʀĭƪŷ˝Ŵĭʂĭ ǎʐ ʓ ÉǍš˝ Ǌƻ̜ ̙̓ ĭ̚   ®wĚćɍɛʀǋ̜̛  ʮ ƍŭǳďø̜ ÉǍ²ɑÔ ̓ ̒ ɍ ɛ®wXĚćHm ½Wɍ ɛʀ

ɍɛʀĭ

ƪŷ²ʂĭ

®wTZɍɛʵ̅®wTZƑĄǎʐ ʓÉǍš˝²Ǌƻ

ĭʫģǼˑ0ʆȺʲ̂˭˝ ȗǘ

ÉǍš˝²Ǌƻ

ɜˉ0ƣĳǼˑ˺ǲ ţÉǍš˝²Ǌƻ

ǍȕǶ0ʗīċʫǡê ŰĂ

Ŗńʲš˝²ǊƻȫȨč0ýƗȴʾʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³ZʟǘʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³ZʟǘʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³ZʟǘʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³ZʟǘǪǨ Ơş

Ŗńʲš˝²ǊƻʡʲȳƖîʊ0Ā˱ȴʾʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³ZʟǘˤǤ ˗À

Ŗńʲš˝²Ǌƻ½̅č0ĭʫģǼˑŧǧ ˲´Ř˫ŘšʡʲǍčɍɛɕ²öǊƻ
¼ÈŘšń˵Ǌ̉š˝²öǊƻ

ʢˢʫ0ĭʫģǼˑʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³ZʟǘʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³ZʟǘʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³ZʟǘˡǪ Ǘĩ

ʗīċʫ0ǍȕǶ

-1-ǨŻ ˥ĩ¶ˠŘšÉǍš˝²öǊƻʡʲȳƖîʊ0Wh ɂĺǍʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³Zʟǘ̎Ȃ Řė

ǮĎŘšń˵Ǎč
ɍɛɕ²öǊƻ
ȀțńɝŘšÉ˩ɕš˝²öǊƻ
ɓƩŘšÉǍšɍɛɕ²ǊƻǮĎŘšǍšɍɛɕ²öǊƻȀțńɝŘšȶő
ơŎɍɛ˰²öǊƻŘ˫ŘšʡʲǍčɍɛɕ²öǊƻ
ˣŊš˰ŘšǍš˝²Ǌƻ˪ʘš˰ŘšǍš˝²ǊƻƦƧɾŐŘšʡʲǍčɍɛƪ²ǊƻǮĎŘšń˵Ǎč
ɍɛɕ²ǓǧšʒƸʉÔȯûɍɛķ(PD)

́ɉȿ0ʆȺʲ̂

ʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³ZʟǘʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³ZʟǘʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³ZʟǘʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³ZʟǘʐÇ ĜȎİźǧ ɔȁ
ŲȔ ǈü
Martin, Roger˄ǜ ȆȻ̎ˡ ɒÅȜ Ļ¿ĎĘ ¾ľȦȹ æË

ʖǍǼˑ0ýƗȴʾǍȕǶ0ˍ˝-́Ǽˑʗīċʫ0ǍȕǶ
ýƗȴʾ0ǍȕǶ

ʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³ZʟǘǍȕǶ0ǫɹȴʾʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³ZʟǘʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³ZʟǘʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³ZʟǘʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³ZʟǘʆȺʲ̂0ýƗȴʾǍȕǶ0´ʈȴʾģǼˑƏƨ0´ʈȴʾʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³ZʟǘɵȰč0Ā˱ȴʾ̝ ɍɛʀZŕǝȰȓ̏ɍɍ ɛÎʔʀq įe̞̐ǔ̡̢̣̦̤̥̟̠TZɍɛʵ̅ ƪŷ²ʂĭɍɛʀȏĭ

®wTZƑĄ









̏ŕǝZǚǣ̜ƃƨ  Ƅ ! Ǡ  Ǔ̐ǐŕǝāZƪŷ²ʂĭȀțńɝŘšÉ˩ɕš˝²öǊƻ
ɓƩŘšÉǍšɍɛɕ²ǊƻǮĎŘšǍšɍɛɕ²öǊƻȀțńɝŘšȶőơ
Ŏɍɛ˰²öǊƻ
Ř˫ŘšʡʲǍčɍɛɕ²öǊƻ
ˣŊš˰ŘšǍš˝²Ǌƻŕǝ̏ųÒ̐ƓZƪŷ²
ʂĭ

ɍɛʀȏĭ

®wTZƑĄĬżʐÇ ĜȎİĬżźǧ ɔȁ

ʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³Zʟǘ
ʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³Zʟǘ

ĬżŲȔ ǈü

Ĭż

Martin, RogerĬż˄ǜ ȆȻĬż̎ˡ ɒÅ

-2-2-

ʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³Zʟǘ
ʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³Zʟǘ
ʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³Zʟǘ
ʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³Zʟǘ

˪ʘš˰ŘšǍš
˝²Ǌƻ

Ĭż

Ȝ Ļ¿

ʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³Zʟǘ

ǔ̡̢̣̦̤̥̟̠TZɍɛʵ̅ ƪŷ²ʂĭÉǍš˝²Ǌ
ɜˉ0ƣĳǼˑƻÉǍš˝²Ǌ
ǍȕǶ0ʗīċʫƻ̏ŕǝZǚǣ̜ƃƨ  Ƅ  Ǡ  Ǔ̐ǐŕǝāZƪŷ²ʂĭƦƧɾŐŘšʡʲǍčɍɛƪ²ǊƻǮĎŘšń˵Ǎčɍɛɕ²ǓǧšʒƸʉÔȯûɍɛķ
(PD)ɍɛʀȏĭ

®wTZƑĄ˭˝ ȗǘʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³Zʟǘ

˺ǲ ţ

ʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³Zʟǘ

ŕǝ̏ųÒ̐ƓZ
ƪŷ²ʂĭ

ɍɛʀȏĭ

®wTZƑĄĬżĎĘ ¾ľ

ʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³ZʟǘĬżȦȹ æË

ʡʲȎˇXōR>ª£³Zʟǘ

-3-3-̓ ̓ ɍ ɛZǻʙ̏ ̓̐ɍɛ®wZɆɄ²ƣ ɾě]ʢȽZǻʙ ȵʸʡʲš[0äûʡʲZʯɪWʤˍqōɏUFSʡʲ˩ZȎˇɍɛq˔ʑHm
BUXjl0É˩ʡʲZǛ˕ɄWǍȕU0ʡʲ˩Z«x³ ¨°qĤʄXHm
ª£³qʟǘHmBUqfEH1BZɍɛ[ˋƄŘ=WƨǰqƷAQQ6m<0ĬǚX0ʡʲȵʸZǱɭd<0ʌʲq¼ƚUHm©³®ʹʲZɍɛXōR7SƏƨDnS=MȈĦɄɮɷ<6l0̇ňɄXŘ=>ɀWmǓǧʲɍɛ;kZʿȲ<ǣƒDnS7m1ǧÄǹ[0BZń˵ɄʙʷXƜ9mMfX0(1)ǓǧʲUǽ2WÌʡʲUZȎˇqʑPS0KZȵʸɄƁɯqƽȑHmń˵ðĬɍɛqŶ˨F0(2)KZƨǰqïʔHmUUgX0(3)ǓǧʲɍɛqōɏUFSń˵ðĬɍɛXŪºF8mʋ
ƫɍɛʀqʃƨHmBUqɆɄUHm1
 ɍɛ³ [0ȯXȵʸɄƨǰ<ǣƒT=m A. ĭʫģǼˑUǍȕǶ0B. ɜˉ0´ʈ0:j]ʆȺʲ̂0C. ȫȨ0½̅0:j]ʢˢʫZÚȸŋ0Z¶Qq¼ƚUF0ńɝȟʍŘš (ĥȢ)0uª³ EFL Řš0t{Řš0 xŘš0°«ŘšZđĆZ¸X0ǓǧʲU¼ńʲ0ª±tɦʡʲ0u°²s³«sɦʡʲ0® °ɦʡʲ0¬ °ɦʡʲ0ª±ɦʡʲ0¬ɦʡʲqȎˇFQQ0ðĬɍɛqʑ81ðĬɍɛ[0ǓƂɄW£³¬ZhlUlqːFS˔ʑHm<0˷¼ɄWʣʼqɆɄUFS0ń˵¯³ ¨qƄ̕5̖Ŀ˨èHm1cM0ƛʙXƜGS0ɍɛđĆʀqƱʁ6m7[ʥĺFS0ðĬɍɛq˓fm1

̏ ̔̐ɍɛɭɻ ʡʲšɍɛ°³Zɍɛķ 6 ĭ0šŖɍɛķ 11 ĭ0PD ĪƄƈ 1 ĭ0:j]Ř
š˰ʡʲɕšůǇʡʲš̃ŋZŘš˰ȷ<¼ƚUWPS0ɍɛq˔ʑFS7m1ǧ
°³[0ǧÄǹXëɝPS02006 Ƅƈ;kńɝȟʍŘš (ĥȢ)0uª³
 EFL Řš0t{Řš0 xŘš0°«ŘšUđĆØýqɭrT:l0ǧÄǹg0BZȝŖ 5 ŘšXƪŷHm¼ńʲ0¬ʲ0ª±tɦʡʲ0u°²s³«sɦʡʲ0® °ɦʡʲ0¬ °ɦʡʲ0ª±ɦʡʲ0¬ɦʡʲZů˧ŨUUgXǼƢFMgZT6m1BnkZŘš;k 16 ĭZʡʲ
šʀ<0ɍɛđĆʀ (ðĬɍɛʀ)UFS0Řš˰ȷUUgXÄǹXĚćFS7m1
̏ ̐̕ɍɛǒʦ²ʦçɠ łǞ̊0ǊŦ0ÔʼŦɠ0ŘšZǒʦqȘȸHm<0ʡʲšɍɛ°³ȱʆZ
ǒʦUFS[0̓µôɘƈZʏǞ0ů˧ʰqǡHmˀǏŦXć90ÚǹŦ̔Ŧ0ť

-4-4-̍Ŧ0ƜƾŦ0ÄČŦ<6m1ÄČŦX[ʂķ<Ƃ̌F0ÄǹZÄČʖĈqʑPS
7m1

̏ ̖̐ɍɛƨǰZǻʙ
 2008 Ƅƈ;kȴņcT0ʢȽːlX0ǓǧʲUÌʡʲUZȎˇɍɛqŶ˨F0K
ZȵʸɄƁɯqˎɛFS0Äǹq˓fS=M1ǓƂɄWɍɛȘċXć90ÄǹZƿ˓qɆɄUFMń˵¯³ ¨q 16 Ŀ0®}§s¢q 23 Ŀ0cM0ƛʙXƜGS0ʺȥÔg˴ǚ˨èFM12012 ƄƈƓĐX[0 xŘšUīĬT0ǍżǑ
Ĳɸ˝ǼˑX˪Hm©³®ʹʲUZȎˇɍɛq˷¼ɄX˔ʑHmMfZɞ 17 Ŀ¯³ ¨qʢȽFS:l0ÄǹZƨǰqǟɬɄXɎʱF0ïʔHmMfZɞ
18 ĿgÂŤFS7m1(BncTZʡʲšɍɛ°³˨è¯³ ¨0®}§s¢0ʺȥÔ´ʝXQ7S[0ˀǏ̓qĚȭDnM71) cM0ðĬɍɛhƨǰZïʔqɆɄUFMɍɛķZ÷ƌ[039 ĿXZbm1(Ďɥ 100u° 50ĥȢ̕0©³® 20¼ń̔0˽ń̓0ńó 16)
 B8FMȘċqːFS0ÂƢq˃9mɍɛƨǰ<ƖknS7m1ȎˇɍɛXjP
S0ǓǧʲUÌʡʲUZðːƟUUgXǓǧʲZɰʲɄȯƙ<ǘɎXWl0cM0ʡʲ˩ZɈ˘qʳǘHmª£³XQ7Sg0ñØɄWǁǷqHmXʇPS7m1
ǓǧʲqˆUFMȎˇɍɛqŶ˨HmBUXjl0ɰʲȵʸXʿȲHmU78ɆǾ[ɎťX˗ƨDnQQ6m1
 ®wāĐ (2008 Ƅƈ52010 Ƅƈ)T[0ǓǧʲUÌZssʹʡʲUZȎˇq¼ƚXʤˍɄɍɛq˓fM1Ǔ¼ʲZĭʫģǼˑZȎˇqōɏUFM½ʙ˝
ª£³Zɍɛ0Ǔ˽ʲZɈ˘qʳǘHm¡®ª£³Zɍɛ0ssZʡʲZȯƙUg79ḿĀ˱ȴʾZȎˇɍɛUKZǍȕɄōɏZʟǘ0ȥɢş—ŕ́˪áZƏƨX˪HmǓ¼ʲȎˇɍɛ0ssZʡʲX:7SŗȸDnmºǶ½ʲ0ŷ
Ƕ½ʲ0½ǶɆɄʲZøǯWV<½W³ T6PM1KnLnZ³ XQ7S0ñØɄWƨǰqƖMZdWkI0ǐMWɍɛ̃ŋqɎɝHmBU<T=M1Ý9\0ǧ®wZĭʫģǼˑZǓ¼ʲȎˇɍɛT[0ŷǶZøƀ0ø̇ˉZøƀ0Ā˱ȴʾ0˪áɣǼˑZșȷXQ7Sŗ>ZʸǍqïʔF0Åʡʲ˩Zǽ2Wʗ˸
WɈ˘qƶǄHmUUgX0Knk<½ʙ˝ª£³Xjl´ƴFSʳǘF8m
BUqʸGM<0ǟˋZšÔT[0ĭʫģZǓ¼ʲȎˇqƭ8Ƀʔ<̆ʎXŒćF
S:l0Bngǧ®wZƨǰUdWHBU<T=m1cM0́Ā˱XQ7
S[0ɰʲʸUʡʲȳƖʸZĝǑ;kĠlɭd0ȯX0̎ȂŘėq¼ƚX0́Ā˱ȴʾÚ—ǚý/ċʫZ´ʈȴʾUZ˪˒qƇɤWȎˇɍɛXjlǸʩFM<0́Ā˱ZȎˇɍɛ[0¼ńhu°Tg˔ʑDnmj8XWl0BZ³ qf?mń˵ɄWɍɛʀ˷Ł<ƏƨDnQQ6m1
 ñØɄWɍɛƨǰZʯɪXQ7S[ƓˍHm<0®wāĐZȯXˠʙW
ƨǰXQ7S[0Japanese Syntax in Comparative Perspective U̅HmʸǍ˷UFSz-5-5-y³÷ȮÔ;kïùHmBU<ȒcPS7m1(Ï¸0zy³ʸǍ˷UȿH1) Ĭ÷ȮÔ;kùʑZƬʨ<6l02010 ƄƈXĘɚqǁ÷FM<0ǳʴX̓ƄÙqǡF0ƘãȆqɮS0ȴņ[ǴȆq˓fS7m1ɩƋZÚƨ0ǟɬȮZĖþ<ȊDnS7mMf0÷Ȯ[ 2013 ƄƈāĐZÂŤT6m1(ʸǍ˷ZɆȅ0ǻʙXQ7S[0ˀǏ̓qĚȭDnM71)
 ®wƓĐ(2010 Ƅƈ52012 Ƅƈ)ZɍɛʢȽ[0ȴņg˔ʑ¼T6m<0HTXŗ>ZƨǰqƖS7m1āĐZƨǰqōɏUFM©³®ʹʡʲqįejlƇɤWȎˇɍɛ0ȵʸɍɛ<½WɆɄT6m1ŗ>Z³ XĠlɭrT=M<0́Ā˱ZʤˍɄɍɛqɃŶDJmɍɛ³ UFS[0Ā˱ȴʾZɰ´ɄøǯUǍȕǶZõøǯ<6m1Ā˱ȴʾZĤʄWøǯUFS0PF Ā˱ÐʳU LF ³Ðʳ<6l0©³®ʡʲTgʞŬDnm VP Ā˱0N’Ā˱0¬³ °ɠZȴʾX́Ā˱qć9Mŏī07InZÐʳ<jlŝƍUWmZ;<´QɆZɍɛʵ̅T
6m1cM0āĐZɍɛXjl0́Ā˱ȴʾ<0́—ǚý/ċʫZ´ʈZȄŜX˂ŀ
HmBU<ɐDnM<0ȯX©³®ɦʡʲZøǯT[0́ǚý/ċʫZ´ʈU
ǍȕǶ<ʔʕ´ØZȴʾT6mBU<Ƈ>ÐŤDnS7m1KBT0́—ǚý/ċʫZ´ʈ<W7ǓǧʲZj8ẂĀ˱ʡʲX:@mǍȕǶZøǯ<0ÅQɆZɍɛʵ
̅UWm1BZʵ̅[0®wāĐXʑPMssʹʡʲZºǶ½ʲ0ŷǶ
½ʲ0½ǶɆɄʲZøǯUgūƾX˪pmgZT6l0ɰʲȵʸZǵƅqWHǶȵ
ʸ_ZʿȲqɆǾUHm1 ©³®ʹʲUZȎˇɍɛX:7S[0½ʙWɍɛ³ Z´QUFS0ǍĲɸ˝ǼˑZʟǘUʳǘ<ƷAknm1©³®ɦʡʲZɍɛX:7S0ǍŻňqɐF0½̅0ȫȨɠZʶʭɄʙɨ<ʔnmǍżǑĲɸ˝ǼˑZ{³ªt³<0Ř=Wɍɛ³ UWPS7m1ǓǧʲZj8W½ʙ˝ƓɼňʡʲqōɏUF
S0BZ³ qˎɛHmBU[eI;F7Uɿ9knS=M<0ǧɍɛ®w
T[0ʖǍǾʻZøƀU˳ŸƟqƫ<;lUFS0ǓǧʲXg©³®ɦʡʲẊÖHmǍĲɸ˝Ǽˑ<ŠņHmBUqɐFM1BZƨǰ[0ÊƓZȎˇɍɛ0
ª£³ɍɛZōɏXWl8mgZT6m1DkX0¤³¬hɬĈʫXɍɛq
ƳŘFS0ǓǧʲǍĲɸ˝Z{³ªt³Ǽˑqǘk;XHmUUgX0{³ªt³ǼˑKZgZq0ƣĳɄ˛Ưý˯hʡʲʑȩZǌīƟXjlʳǘHm
BUqfEHȵʸɍɛq˔ʑF0ʡʲȳƖȵʸXŮHmƁɯgˎɛFM1BZɯǰ
UFS0{³ªt³ɍɛZń˵¯³ ¨X:7SǓǧʲ<½ʙWʡʲUFSĠl·Aknmj8XWl0ǧ®wZɍɛʀ<ɃʔʀUFSƱʁD
nmBUgŗ>WPS7m1 ®wƓĐX[0Ï·ZɍɛXć9S0ǓǧʲȯǡZ³XōR>ýƗ
ȵʸZɍɛWVTğʎWƨǰ<ƖknS7m1·ʤzy³ʸǍ˷Zɲ
ɶUFS0BnkZƨǰqïùHmÂŤT6m<0÷ȮX[̔ƄɘƈqʙHmBU;k0Ul69I0ǧ®wZǟɬŎıǞX½ʙʸǍqǀˈHmBUXFS
7m1

-6-6-

̝ énMƨǰ<6<PMȨ̞ Ï¸0(1) ĭʫģZǼˑ0(2) Ā˱ȴʾ0(3) ɗċȴʾ0(4) ʢˢʫZÚȸŋU Wh
ģZʟ˞0 (5) ǍȕǶ0(6) ǍĲɸ˝Ǽˑ0(7) ʡʲȳƖ0U78ɍɛ³ ȍX0ɍɛƨǰqŎıHm1(1) ĭ ʫģZǼˑ
 É˩ʡʲ[0½ʙ˝āɼň (SVO, āɼʫ)U½ʙ˝Ɠɼň (SOV, Ɠɼʫ)XŘû
Dnm<0ˋƄ0BZďøXɂĺ<ƮA;@knS7m1BZĺ̅XȆ˼;kĠl
ɭrNʸǍ<0Saito, Lin and Murasugi (2008) T6m1Ǔǧʲ<òňɄW½ʙ˝ƓɼňʡʲT6mZXŮFS0¼ńʲ[ǻFS½ʙ˝āɼňT6m1ȬmX0¼ńʲĭʫģ[0ʔŸɄX[½ʙ˝ƓɼňT6l0ǓǧʲĭʫģUǺfṠÖHmǼˑqg
QUDnS=M1ǧʸǍ[0cI0N’Ā˱ȴʾqƫ<;lUFS0Ǔ¼ʲĭʫģZʯɪWȎˇɍɛqʑ70BncTȐÍ;nW;PMǋ2ZɈ˘Ȩqǘk;XHm1
KZ·T0BnkZɈ˘<0¼ńʲĭʫģ<ť[½ʙ˝āɼňT6mBUqÐŤHmBUXjPS0´ʊɰʲȵʸ;kʳǘF8mBUqɐH1BZɯʸ[0½ʙ˝āɼň̑ƓɼňZďøqǆƵHmgZT6m1
 ĭʫģX:@ṁňɄďøUFS0ø̇ˉʡʲ (5ô05ǧɠ) ̑ǋˉʡʲ (ʗǋƏɠ) <6m1ǓǧʲU¼ńʲ[0ʗǋqʔHƾˉ<ǺfS˯knS:l (5MȎ5men)0òňɄWø̇ˉʡʲUDnS7m1ˋƄT[0ø̇ˉUǋˉqĬ´ZgZUHmÐʳ<Ƈ>ġ@ínknS7m<0BZÐʳXƕ9\0Ǔ¼ʲ[ǋˉqƵM
W7BUXWm1Ueda (2009) [0ńɝȟʍŘšZ Hui-Chin Joyce Tsai ȏZđĆqƖ
S0ø̇ˉUʗǋƾˉZøƀX˪HmʯɪWǓ¼ʲȎˇɍɛqʑ70Åʡʲ˩ZɈ
˘<0Saito, Lin and Murasugi (2008) Zøǯ:j]Ǔ¼ʲ<ø̇ˉU[ȱɝFMǋˉ
qǡHmUHmÐʳXōR7SʳǘDnmBUqɐH1BZBU[0ǋˉZǛ˕ƟqɐĸF0ʡʲ˩ZɈ˘<0ēɧXø̇ˉZǡȪX˂ŀHmĤʄƟqǁɐHm1
 ŧǧ˲´[0Ï·Zƨǰq^c9S0ńɝȟʍŘšqʥĺF0Ǔ¼ʲ˪áɣȎˇ
ZʯɪWðĬɍɛqʑPM1Saito, Lin and Murasugi (2008) :j] Ueda (2009) Zøǯ[0¼ńʲXÅə0ǓǧʲX´əZ˪áɣ<6mBUqÂȠHm<0BZÂȠ<ȆF7BU<ǸʩDn0BZǚȨTǓ¼ʲĭʫģZȎˇøǯ<abŢƨHmXʇP
M1BZƨǰgHTX “On Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP Ellipsis”(2010)U̅HmʸǍXcUfknS:l0zy³ʸǍ˷XSïùDnm1 ĭʫģZǓ¼ʲȎˇ[0®wāĐZʵ̅T6PM<0Ï·Z 3 ɶZʸǍ[HTXƇ>ʴcnS:l0ÎǷZǁɐgWDnS7m1ǧ®wZøǯX
jn\0¼ńʲT[ø̇ˉ<ĭʫģóZ½ʙ˝T6mZXŮFS0ǓǧʲT[ø̇ˉģ<ĭʫã̈ZʙɨT6mBUXWm1BnXŮFS0Ý9\0Akira Watanabe(2010, “Notes on Nominal Ellipsis and the Nature of no and Classifiers in Japanese,” Journalof East Asian Linguistics) [0ǓǧʲX:7Sgø̇ˉ<¼ńʲUĬǽX^mc8U
ɿ9knmÝqǁɐF0ĞʸqŶ˨FM1ǧ®wT[0B8FMĞ̀q^-7-7-c90ǎʐʓ0ȦȹæË0ǪǨƠşq¼ƚUFS0ĥȢ²ńɝȟʍŘšZɍɛđĆʀUðX0DkWmø̇ˉZǓ¼ʲȎˇɍɛq˓fS7m1BZƨǰ[0ǟɬŎıǞXǀˈHm1cM0zy³Řš÷ȮÔjl0Ǔ¼ʲȎˇɰʲʸX˪HmēʎŌɟZƬʨqġ@S:l0BZĤʄƟgˎɛFQQ02013 ƄƈÏˮgɍɛqɱɲFS7>ÂŤT6m1
(2) Ā ˱ȴʾ ȴņZɰʲȵʸɍɛX:7S[0Ā˱ȴʾZøǯ<ˠʙW×ɼqĕfm1·ʤZĭʫģǼˑZɍɛX:7Sg N’Ā˱ȴʾZɿŬ<ˠʙWƑĄqǰMFM<0ǧÄǹT[Ā˱ȴʾʆØZɍɛXgĠlɭd0KZƨǰ<0Saito (2008), Saito and An (2010),
Sugisaki (2009b, 2011), Takahashi (2008a, 2008b, 2009, to appear), ener and Takahashi(2010), Kimura and Takahashi (2012), Dejima, Nakatani and Murasugi (2009), Kitahara(2011), Takita (2011, 2012) UFSɯťFS7m1
 ˋƄ0Ǔǧʲh˽ńʲTʞŬDnḿĀ˱<0̇ňɄXȯɀWȴʾUFSȖɆq
˷fS7m1ǧ®wX:7Sg0́Ā˱ȴʾqˠʙWɍɛʵ̅UFSĠl
·A0ŗ>ZƨǰqƖM1ener and Takahashi (2010) [0ǓǧʲU¬ʲZȎˇqːFS0́Ā˱qĤʄXHmǍȕZ£{¢qƽm1ǓǧʲT[0´ʈȴʾ<
W>0½ʲ0ɆɄʲqįeH`SŹ<Ā˱ZŮʾUWm1´Ǒ0¬ʲT[0ǚýǍX:7S½ʲ-ċʫZ´ʈȴʾ<dknm1ener and Takahashi [0¬ʲ
X:7S0ɆɄʲh0ċʫU´ʈFW7½ʲZd<Ā˱ZŮʾUWmBUqɐFS0´ʈZȄŜÚĀ˱Z˪˒qɿŬF0DkXBZ´ʊč<ɰʲȵʸZƁɯUFSű;nmBUqǘk;XHm1̎ȂŘė[0t{ŘšZ Hsu-Te Johnny
Cheng ȏ Z đ Ć q Ɩ S 0 ¼ ń ʲ Z  ³  q į f 0 D k X ø ǯ q Ȟ f M ʸ Ǎ“Argument Ellipsis, Anti-agreement, Scrambling” qŢƨDJM1BZʸǍgzy³ʸǍ˷X:7SïùDnm1
 BŹĀ˱ȴʾZɍɛq^c9S0®wƓĐT[0KZȵʸɄ²ɮ̍ɄƁɯqˎɛFS7m1Ā˱ȴʾ´ʊZøǯUFS0(i)3ɜƪ4< PF (˾Ŕ˝˧) X:@mĀ˱XjlȷGmUHm PF Ā˱øǯU (ii)3ɜƪ4[ɰʲɄXgŠņF0LF(ƣĳʟ˞˝˧) X:7Sʟ˞<º9knmUHm LF ³øǯ<6l0ʸÃ<ɲ
7S7m1Saito (2008), ener and Takahashi (2010) T[0́Ā˱ȴʾZøǯ;k LF
³øǯqǆƵHmʼʸqŶ˨FM<0ǟɬɄWɯʸqƖmMfX[0©³®ɦZʡʲTgʞŬDnm VP Ā˱0N’Ā˱0¬³ °ɠ0ÌZĀ˱ȴʾgī
pJSɿŬHmƛʙ<6m1ǧ®wT[0ȴņBZʵ̅XĠlɭrT:l0
ɞ 15 Ŀ¯³ ¨ (2012 Ƅ 7 Ǡ 28 Ǔ529 Ǔ) X˷¼ɄXʣʼFM1BZƨǰ[ 0 ̎ Ȃ Ř ė < c U f 0 ǟ ɬ Ŏ ı Ǟ Xǀˈ H mÂ ŤT 6 m1 cM 0 ener and
Takahashi (2010) XjḿĀ˱<´ʈZȄŜX˂ŀHmUZǁǷ[0ǓǧʲǍȕǶZõøǯU78ǐMWɍɛʵ̅qǁɐHm1Noam Chomsky (2008) ɠZ´ʊȵʸT[0ǍȕǶZʱĤU´ʈ[ʔʕ´ØZ˪áX6l0ǍȕǶ[´ʈqːFSʱĤ²ÂåD
nmUɿ9knS7m;kT6m1BZʵ̅X[0ǎʐʓq¼ƚUFSĠlɭd0-8-8-

ƨǰ< Saito (2012) UFSïùDnS7m<03(5) ǍȕǶ4X:7Sǻʙqˍ`m
BUUHm1 ǧÄǹZƍúZʢȽT[0Ǔ˽ʲ<̇ÖHmMf0Ǔ˽ʲȎˇ[½ʙWɍɛ³
UFS7W;PM<0BZÅʡʲ<̇ÖHm<ǉX0Ǔ˽ʲȎˇ<¡®ª£
³ZʟǘX:7SˠʙWƑĄqǰMF8mBU<ǘk;XWPS=M1Bnq^
c90Aoyagi (2010), Saito and An (2010), Takita (to appear b) T[0Ǔ˽ʲȎˇɍɛ<Ŷ˨DnS7m1
 Saito and An (2010) [0Ǔ˽ʲZĀ˱ȴʾqØɦɄXȎˇ²ǸʣHm1ĝǑZʡʲ
X:7S0ĬǽŹĀ˱ȴʾ<ʞŬDnmBU[ɌknS7M<0¬³ °0N’Ā˱XQ7S[0ʯɪWȎˇ<WDnS7W;PM1Saito and An [0ǓǧʲU˽
ńʲZ¬³ °UĴ\nmȴʾ<0ðX0ʌʲɠZòňɄW¬³ °U[
ɀWl0́Ā˱Z´ƏƥT6mBUqɐH1cM0ǓǧʲX:7SʞŬDnm N’Ā˱<˽ńʲX[ŠņFW7BUqǘk;XF0BZɈ˘qŷǶƹíʛÿZŤƊčX
:@m¡®ª£³XjmgZUFSøǯHm1Takita (to appear b) [0BZɯʸqġ@ínQQg0ýƗǼǍU78ǺfS˯knM°T0ǓǧʲXg
ʌʲĬǽZ¬³ °ȴʾ<ŠņHmBUqƶǄF0øǯqǁɐHm1DkX0
BZȴʾ<˽ńʲX[W7BUqɐFS0ċʫ·ǖXápm¡®ª£³Xj
l0BZɈ˘Zʳǘqʬdm1Takita ZøǯXjn\0ǓǧʲZ¬³ °[0su¬ª°ʲZ VP Ā˱U̇ÖHmƟˁqǡHm1ȯX0½ʙ˝ɶíUĀ˱ZɈ
ÆÚȸX:7SĬǽZ³°<ʞŬDnmBU[0Ā˱ȴʾZñØɄWøǯX˪
FSŗ>ZƁɯqǡHm1BZȨXQ7S[0ȴņ0su¬ª°ʲĀ˱ȴʾZɍ
ɛʀT6m James McCloskey ȏUðĬɍɛq˔ʑFS:l0KZƨǰqǟɬŎıǞXǀˈH`>Ȥçq˓fS7m1(3) ɗ ċȴʾ ɗċȴʾXQ7S[0Saito (2009, 2010, 2011), Aoyagi and Kato (2009), Kishimoto(2009, 2010, 2011), Sugisaki (2008, 2012), Takano (2010, 2012, to appear), Takita (2009b,2012), Takita and Yang (to appear) ɠ0ǓǧʲX:@mª°«°h½̅čX˪
Hmŗ>ZʸǍ<ïʔDnM1cI0ª°«°XQ7S[0Saito (2010) <KncTZɍɛƨǰqɰīFQQ07pim A/A’ZďûXQ7SǐMWǁǷqʑP
M1ǋˢʫÚȸŋ0ȫȨčZ³XōR7S0TP Z·×X Pred U78ȃʄɤɁ<×ɼHmBUqɐFM·T0TP qɋȨUHm A ª°«°U PredP (6m7[ CP) qɋȨUHm A’ª°«°<ǼˑɄXďûF8mBUqɐFMgZ
T6m1BZʸǍ[03(6) ǍĲɸ˝Ǽˑ4TǻʞHm©³®ʹʡʲZżǑĲɸ˝UǓǧʲZħǑĲɸ˝UZȎˇɍɛZŚȃUgWPM1
 BZɍɛ̃ŋX:@m®wāĐǣZǟğʎWƨǰ[0̎ˡɒÅZ “A
Comparative Approach to Japanese Postposing” (zy³ʸǍ˷Xğ˦) T6o81ǓǧʲZħǑª°«°XQ7S[0ǽ2Wøǯ<ǁɐDnS7m<0
BZʸǍ[0ʔŸɄX[̇ÖHmȴʾqǡHm¬ʲUZȎˇq^c9S0Ǔǧ-9-9-ʲZħǑª°«°Zøǯqʑ70ȵʸɄƁɯqǸʣFMgZT6m1cI0
¬ʲZħǑª°«°<0ɰʲɄɗċUFSZƟˁqç9S7mBUq
ɐF0BnUȎˇHmBUXjPS0ǓǧʲZħǑª°«°<0˾˿˝˧
TZɗċZƟˁqǡHmBUqǘk;XHm1ȅX0ǓǧʲX:@mɰʲɄWħǑ
ª°«°ZȄŜq0ǓǧʲZʖǍǾʻZƏƥɄȯƙ;kʳǘHm1ǟƓX0ǁɐFMøǯ<0ǓǧʲX:7SgɰʲɄɗċ<˯knM°T[ʧũD
nmBUqÂȠHmBUqƶǄF0BZÂȠ<ȆF7BUqɐH1ȎˇɍɛXjP
S0ǓǧʲZʤˍqȆɎWgZUF0DkXʡʲ˩Z«x³ ¨°qʳǘHmBZʸǍ[0ǧÄǹZƣɾqǘɎXɐHgZT6m1
 ̎ˡɒÅ[0KZƓ0ª°«°ɍɛqɃŶDJ0ȯXýƗȵʸ_ZƁɯqʯɪXǸʣFS Takano (2010) UFSɃʔFM1ýƗǼǍXQ7S[0ÕɰɄW
PRO øǯU Norbert Hornstein ȏɠ<ǐMXǁĹFS7mɗċøǯ<6m1Takano(2010) [0ýƗǍX:@mª°«°Z´ʚřɀXʚ9m^mc7qʯɪXʤˍF0KZ·T0ʞŬDnM³°<0ǧ®wZª°«°øǯUýƗǍZɗċøǯXjPSʳǘDnmBUqɐH1ǓǧʲXȯǡZȴʾqōX0ýƗǍZɗċøǯqǆƵHmʼʸqŶ˨FMȱąɄWʸǍT6m1BZƨǰqġ@S02011 Ƅƈjl0̎ˡɒÅUýƗȵʸqů˧UHmʐÇĜȎİ<0ýƗǍZɗċøǯqǆƵHmǓǧʲZ³qjlƇɤXğ˷F0cUfS7m1cI0ʐÇ<
Fujii (2012) X:7S0ǧ®wîʊZɍɛƨǰq^c9QQ0ʆkZĔœʸǍqɃŶDJS0ǓǧʲýƗǍZōɏɄWøǯqǁɐFM1BnqōɏUFMðĬ
ɍɛZƨǰ[02013 Ƅ 2 ǠXÂŤDnS7mɞ 18 Ŀ¯³ ¨TǸʣF0ǟɬŎıǞXǀˈHmBUXWPS7m1(4) ʢ ˢʫZÚȸŋU Wh ģ Zʟ˞ BZɍɛ̃ŋX:@mƨǰUFS[0Kishimoto (2008b), Miyamoto (2008, 2009a,
2009b), Takita and Yang (to appear) <6m<0Ï¸0ʐÇĜȎİUȦȹæËZ Wh ɂĺǍX˪Hmɍɛq¼ƚXƨǰqɐH17Ing0ɍɛđĆʀUZðʎʸǍUFS0zy³ʸǍ˷Xğ˦Dnm1
 1982 ƄZ C.-T. James Huang ȏXjmɍɛ (MIT ĔœʸǍ) X:7S0Ǔ¼ʲ[0̆ņɄW Wh ɗċqǡFW7òňɄWʡʲUFS0ĬǽZøǯ<º9knM1BZɍɛqŚȃUFS0Ǔ¼ʲZĝǑX:7SjlʯɪWɍɛ<WDn0»ʡʲ˩ZðːƟZdWkI0Ɉ˘gǘk;XWPS=M<0ǧǶɄWȎˇɍɛ[WDnS7W;PM1ʐÇ[0ȦȹUUgX0ȟʍŘšZɍɛđĆʀ W.-T. Dylan Tsai ȏ, Barry
C.-Y. Yang ȏZđĆqƖS0Huang ȏXjPSƶǄDn0Tsai ȏZĔœʸǍ (1995,
MIT) X:7Søǯ<ȞfknMĭʫ Wh ģUăʫ Wh ģZ˻ŮɖƟq0Ǔ¼ʲȎˇɍɛqːFSǸʩFM1BZƨǰ[0̖ĭZðʎʸǍ “Comparative Remarks on Whadverbials in-situ in Japanese and Chinese” UFS·ʤʸǍ˷XSïùDnm1(Fujii,
Takita, Yang and Tsai (to appear)) Ȧȹ[0Barry C.-Y. Yang ȏUZðʎʸǍ (Takita
and Yang (to appear)) X:7S0˻é×ƟȴʾZǡȪɠXdknmǓ¼ʲ˩ZɈ˘q-10- 10 -ʯɪXǸʣFM1cI0ăʫ Wh ģZȯɀWƟˁqǘk;XFQQ0Tsai ȏZ˻˛ƯɄǫɹU˻̆ņɄɗċXjmøǯqɃŶDJm1KZ·T0Ǔ¼ʲZɈ˘qĠl
·A0ĭʫ Wh ģ<0¼ńʲT[˻˛ƯɄǫɹXjPSʟ˞DnmZXŮFS0ǓǧʲT[˻̆ņɄɗċXjPSʱĤDnmU78ÐʳqǁɐFS0»ʡʲ˩Zǽ2WɈ˘Xɰ´ɄWøǯqº9S7m1(5) Ǎ ȕǶ ǍȕǶgɰʲ ȵʸ X:@ m½ ʙW ɍɛ³ T6l0Murasugi and Watanabe(2009), Koizumi (2008), Ochi (2009), Sugisaki (2009a), Sawada, Murasugi and Fuji (2010),
Takeuchi (2010), Kishimoto (2010, 2011), Saito (2012), Kitahara (2011, 2012) ɠ0ŗ>ZʸǍ<ïʔDnM1cI0ȱąɄWʤˍɍɛUFS0Takeuchi (2010) :j]źǧɔȁ0ȜĻ¿XjmǓǧʲUu°ʹʡʲZȎˇɍɛqɫËHm1ȅX0́Ā˱øǯZƨǰq^c9S0ǓǧʲǍȕǶqõøǯF0ģǼˑƏƨZ£{¢qʸGM
Saito (2012), Kitahara (2012) qǻʞHm1
 Takeuchi (2010) [0cI0ǓǧʲX:@mÝŖɄǶÍºȴʾqʯɪXǸʣF0Ǻ
Ų½ɾȵʸX:@mɨƟɗʑ£{¢qƼȸFQQ0BncTƶǄDnS7Mɮ
̍Ʉĺ̅qʟȒHmǐMWøǯqǁɐHm1ȅX0t{ŘšZɍɛđĆʀ Serkan ener ȏZđĆZ¸X0ǓǧʲU¬ʲZȎˇɍɛqʑ70ʉĳȞ7ŗ
>ZɈ˘ȨqƶǄHm1KFSǟƓX0ɨƟɗʑq˴ƣɄXʑ8ʖǍǾʻZŽɀU
78¡®ª£³XjPS0BnkZɈ˘Ȩ<ɰ´ɄXʳǘDnmBUqɐH1 źǧUȜZɍɛ[0˻½Ƕ½ʲX˪HmgZT6m1˻½Ƕ½ʲ[0u°²s³«sɦ0ª±tɦqĺpI0ŗ>Zu°ZʡʲX:7SʞŬDn0u°
X:@mʡʲšZ½ʙWɍɛ³ UWPS7m1ǧÄǹT[0źǧUȜ<0u° EFL ŘšZɍɛđĆʀ K. A. Jayaseelan ȏU R. Amritavalli ȏZđĆqƖS0˻½
Ƕ½ʲX˪HmȎˇɍɛqʑPS:l0źǧZɍɛƨǰ[ “Dative/Genitive Subjects
in Japanese: A Comparative Perspective” 0 Ȝ Z ɍ ɛ ƨ ǰ [ “Dative Subjects andImpersonals in Null-subject Languages”U̅HmʸǍXcUfknS7m1(7Ingz
y³ʸǍ˷Xğ˦1) źǧ[0cI0ǓǧʲZʤˍɄɍɛXjPS0°t0°|«ɠZu°²s³«sɦʡʲXʚknmɮ̍½ŷǶ½ʲ<0Ǔǧ
ʲX:7SgʞŬDnmBUqɐH1KZ·T0Jayaseelan ȏ0Amritavalli ȏZ°tʲøǯqōɏUFS0ǓǧʲZŷǶ½ʲǍ0ºǶ½ʲǍqøǯF0ǓǧʲZȯƙqʳǘHmª£³qˎɛHm1
 ÌǑ0Ȝ[0 ª¦ª¢0{°ɠZª±tɦʡʲX[0ºǶ½ʲ< TP ƶ
Ť˝X6mǓǧʲuZºǶ½ʲǼǍ[ŠņFW7U78 Jayaseelan, Amritavalli»ȏZƶǄXɋɆF0KZĘŀqƽm1[GfX0ǓǧʲX:7SgºǶ½ʲ<ÂƢXĞFSʧũDnW7ŏī<6mBUqɐF0ʗīˍ˝Xjmɮ̍½ƣĳƑĄZ
Íº<0́Z TP ƶŤ˝_Zɗċq¹ĤʄXHmUZøǯqɐH1ȅX0BZøǯq
ª¦ª¢ʲX˚ȸHmĤʄƟqǸʣF0ºǶ½ʲZǡȪX˪HmǓǧʲU ª¦ª¢ʲZɈ˘Zʳǘqʬdm1Ǜ˕ǍȕZǱɭdqÐŤFMǓǧʲUu°ʹʡʲ-11- 11 -ZȎˇɍɛ[0cN˨ŞDnM\;lT6l0ŗ>Zʵ̅qȊH<0źǧʸǍ0Ȝ
ʸǍ<ÊƓZɍɛZōɏUWmBU<ǣƒDnm1
 3(2) Ā˱ȴʾ4TʠnMj8X0ǧ®wŹĀ˱øǯXjl0ǓǧʲǍȕǶqǵǧɄXʚɇHƛʙ<ȷGM11960 ƄÎÏˮ0ǓǧʲǍȕǶZȯȉƟ<ǽ2WƏTʸGknS=M<01990 ƄÎ;k0ʌʲUĬǽZƏTøǯHms®³<½ȚXWPS7m1(Ý9\0Hiroyuki Ura (1999), Ken Hiraiwa (2001), Masahiko
Takahashi (2010) qĚȭ1) ½ʲ.ǚý0ɆɄʲ/ċʫZ´ʈ<ōǧUFS6l0ǍȕǶqBZǅÚZ´˝X×ɼÍ@mɿ9ǑT6m1´ǑT0ǓʌʲȎˇɍɛX:7S[0ǓǧʲZȯȉƟq´ʈZȄŜXjlʳǘFj8UHmʬd<WDnS=M1S.Y Kuroda (1988) <ÎʔɄWʸǍUFSƷAknm1ǧ®wX:@ḿĀ˱Zøǯ[0BnqɃŶDJ0Ǔǧʲ0˽ńʲ0¬ʲ0¼ńʲX:@ḿĀ˱ȴʾ<´ʈZȄŜXjlĤʄXWmBUqǁǷFMgZT6m1BZɯʸ[0ǓǧʲZǍȕǶ<0´ʈU[ȱɝFMgZT6mBUqįƣHm1
 Saito (2012) [0BZĺ̅XĠlɭd0ǓǧʲǍȕǶZǐMWøǯqǁɐFMʸǍ
T6m1cI0ǓǧʲǍȕǶZȯƙqʯɪXǸʣFM·T0PP ZǶ0½ǶɆɄʲZ
ƇÚȸŋɠ0´ʈøǯU[ɈũnW7ȴʾ<ŗ26mBUqƶǄHm1ȅX0Ǔǧ
ʲ Ǎ ȕ Ƕ q ´ ʈ T [ W > 0 Û ī Z ´ ˝UF S × ɼ Í@ m B Uq ǁ Ƿ F0 Junri
Shimada (2007), Tonoike (2009) ZģǼˑƏƨ£{¢qƼȸFQQ0ñØɄWøǯqǁɐHm1DkX0BncTĺ̅UDnS=MŷǶ½ʲZøƀhǓǧʲZ½ʙ˝
ƓɼňģǼˑ<0BZøǯZƁɯUFSʳǘDnmBUqɐH1BZƨǰqġ@S0
Kitahara (2012) [0ģǼˑƏƨU78Ǎȕ·ǟgōǧɄWǅÚX:7S0Ǔʌʲ˩XɈ˘<6mZ;0U78ĺ7Xɡ9j8UFS7m1»ʡʲX:7S0ģǼˑ<ĬǽXƏƨDn0Ɉ˘[´ʈZǡȪX˜êT=mZ;0KnUg0´ʈZǡȪ<ģǼˑƏƨZ£{¢KZgZXƐ̀qº9mZ;0U78ĺ7T6m1Kitahara(2012) [ƓʀZĤʄƟqˎɛF0ƁɯqʸGS:l0ǘɎWɯʸ<ɐDnMp@T[W7<0òňɄW½ʙ˝āɼňʡʲT6mʌʲUòňɄW½ʙ˝ƓɼňʡʲT6
mǓǧʲZǵȣɄWɈ˘XˌmʸǍUFS0ÊƓ0ȖɆDnmBUXWo81ǎʐUĎĘ[0ȴņgɍɛqɱɲFS:l0Saito (2012), Kitahara (2012) qjlɃŶDJ
MʸǍqǟɬŎıǞXǀˈHmÂŤT6m1(6) Ǎ Ĳɸ˝ZǼˑ Luigi Rizzi ȏZu«sʲżǑĲɸ˝X˪Hmɍɛ (1997) Ïˮ0ʶʭǼˑqɐH
Ǎ·Ÿ˝Zɰʲɍɛ<0ȯX® °ɦʡʲ0¬ °ɦʡʲZ³XōR7S
ɅrXʑpnS7m1ʶʭɄʡʲUʡpnmǓǧʲU©³®ɦʡʲZȎˇqʑ
8X[0ǶśWǩǏqǁÞFS7m<0Ǔǧʲ[½ʙ˝ƓɼňT6m·Xª°«°qŗȸHmMfX0ǍżǑĲɸ˝ZǼˑ<ƺ9X>71KBT0Saito (toappear a) [0ǍħǑĲɸ0ȯXʖǍǾʻZ˳ŸǼˑXȖɆF0ǓǧʲUu°ʲ:j]u«sʲZȎˇqʑPM1cI0ʖǍǾʻ3U4<ːƂÐŤDnS7mj
8Xĵ̅ZʖǍǾʻT[W>0u°ʲZ que UĬǽXɇƾƋȸZʡ7ǂ9qŉ-12- 12 -fˊeȃʄqǡF0cM0BZȃʄXȯčFMʖǍǾʻT6mBUqɐH1ȅX0
3U4T[W>3Z4<ĵ̅ǍZʖǍǾʻT6mBUqÝʩF03Z-;-U4U78˳ŸƟ<® °ɦʡʲZ Finite-Force-Report XŮƜHmBUqɐH1ǟƓX0½Ǎ
ZdXȷ˂HmUʡpnS=M½̅ZʖǍóZøƀqõǸʣFS0Finite-*(Topic)Force-Report Z˳ŸqǁɐHm1BZɯʸ[0ǓǧʲZǍĲɸ˝Ǽˑ<u«sʲX
ǺfṠÖFS7mBUqɐH1Rizzi (1997) T[0Force-*(Topic)-(Focus)-*(Topic)Finite U78u«sʲZǼˑ<ǁǷDnS7m<0BnXƕ9\0ǓǧʲX[u°ʲTgʞŬDnm Report <6l0Focus <ȄŜFS7mBUZd<u«sʲ
UZɈ˘UWm1úfSǓǧʲU©³®ɦʡʲZĲɸ˝ǼˑŻÖƟqƶǄHmBUXjl0ª£³ɍɛZŶǢg˨@MUʡ9j81
 Saito and Haraguchi (to appear) [0BZøǯq¤³¬UɬĈʫXƳƌHm1¤³
¬XQ7S[·ȹȺ˂ş (2007)0ɬĈʫXQ7S[˙ʐĽ˶ (2010) ZʤˍɄɍ
ɛ<6m<0BnqɃŶDJ0KnLnZ˳ŸƟqǘɎXHmUUgX0˳ŸƟK
ZgZqʳǘHmBUqʬdm1ǓǧʲZ¤³¬X[0ʌʲUĬǽXē´ǬÑ<ʵJknm<0BnqƏƥɄ0ƣĳɄ˛Ưý˯;kű>1cM0ɬĈʫ[øƀ<½ǍX˯knmʡʲʑȩɄʙɨT6mBUqÝʩF03p/j/Y/W4U78˳ŸƟ<0ƣĳɄ˛ƯUʡʲʑȩZǌīƟ;kű;nmBUqɐH1BZɍɛ[0˳ŸƟZƶǄXȾcmBU<ŗ;PM7pim{³ªt³ɍɛq´ȇ˓fS0ǺŲ½ɾ
ȵʸq^c9S˳ŸƟZʳǘƟX˅dˊrNgZT6m1cM0¤³¬Zŗ><ƾˉT6l0ɬĈʫqŗȸHmǓǧʲZȯƙXßƲFMʼʸqŶ˨FS:l0ǓǧʲɍɛXōR>ȵʸɍɛZòňTg6m1(7) ʡ ʲȳƖ ʡʲȳƖɍɛ[0ǪǨƠşUǨŻ˥ĩq¼ƚXŶ˨Dn0HTXŗ>ZʸǍ<ïʔDnS7m1ɰʲɍɛqǸʩF0ɰʲɍɛX°qº9mòňɄWʸǍUFS[0Murasugi and Sugisaki (2008), Sugisaki (2010, 2011), Fuji, Hashimoto and Murasugi(2008a), Murasugi (2010) ɠ<6m1cM0ʡʲȳƖ̃ŋŃǡZȱƢɄɍɛ³ U
FS0ƆìZʡʲȳƖȋ˳ZȎˇɍɛq6AmBU<T=m1Murasugi and Fuji
(2009), Murasugi and Nakatani-Murai (2009), Dejima, Nakatani and Murasugi (2009),
Murasugi (2011, 2012) q¼ƚX0ƓʀZɍɛƨǰqǻʞHm1
 ƆìZɃʭ[0´ʲǍ;kŞcl07>Q;Zȋ˳qɮS0½ƌ0ɂĺ0ß̄WVqǍȕɄXʔHȋ˳Xʇm1ǍȕȳƖZɃ˗ȋ˳X˪HmÐʳUFS0¸×Zċʫ;kŞfSƔ2X·×Zǚý0 ʖǍǾʻXʇmU78ʲƎɤɁÐʳ (Andrew
Radford)0ƍú;k·×ǼˑqÐŤHmU78ŢîǼˑÐʳ (Kenneth Wexler)0Ɔì
[·×ǼˑqȳƖFS7mgZZ0˝øǼˑqȸ7mU78·×ǼˑɉȿÐʳ(Luigi Rizzi) <6m1ǧ®wX:@mʡʲȳƖɍɛT[0BnkZÐʳqǸʩHmMfXǡȸUɿ9knmǓǧʲZ³qğ˷F0KnXōR7SȵʸɄɍɛq˔ʑHmBUqfEFS7m1-13- 13 - ·ʤZ7InZÐʳg0ʌʲɠZʡʲX:7S0½ǍX¹Ťċʫqȸ7mɃ˗ȋ
˳<6mBU<ƶǄF0ˠʙW³UFS×ɼÍ@S7m1F;F0BZɃ˗ȋ˳[0Îĭʫɉȿ (6m7[́Ā˱) qʧũFW7ʡʲX:7SZdʞŬDnmUÐ
ŤDnS:l0˪˒Hm³[Ǔǧʲ;k[ƖknW7UDnS7M1BnXŮ
FS0Murasugi and Fuji (2009) [0ǓǧʲZɃ˗ȋ˳qʯɪXøǯF0½Ǎ¹Ťʫȋ˳ZǛ˕ƟqɐH1Îĭʫɉȿ<ĤʄWʡʲ[0òňɄX0ċʫZʲƅqKZc
cʲUFSÜ8BU<T=I0ǚýɠZƾˉqć9S[GfSċʫ<ʲUWm1F
M<PS0Ɔì<3¹ŤƏ4qɃʭFW7BU[ƍȬU79m1F;F0Murasugi
and Fuji [0Ƀʭ³ZøǯXōR=0Ý9\ǓǧʲX:7S0ʌʲZ¹ŤċʫɃʭXŮƜHmȋ˳<6mBUqɐH1ñØɄX[0ĬǽZǚǣX0ǓǧʲqʭHƆì[0ǍZǚýX˪pkIċʫZ˖ęƏqȸ7m1BZBU[0˖ęƏ<0¹ŤƏ
UĬǽX3ȪǾZƏƥ4Uƺ9knS7mBUqɐF0DkX0ʡʲZȋ˳ɄɃ˗XǛ˕Ɵ<6mBUqɐĸHm1BZɯǰq^c90ǪǨƠşq¼ƚUFS0ȴņǓǧʲ³XōR>·ʤ¶ÐʳZǸʩq˓fQQ6m1cM0³øǯXōR
7S0ǚý0ʖǍǾʻ0ǍȕǶɠZɃ˗˖ɘUKZ˒˪gǘɎXWPS=S:l0ƆìXjmǓǧʲȳƖZ˖ɘKZgZ<ǘk;XWlQQ6m1BnkZƨǰ[0ǟɬŎıǞXǀˈHmBUUFS7m1
 ʯɪWǓǧʲɃʭ³ZøǯZ˖ɘT0ǓǧʲqȌʲUHmƆì<ǺfSǕ7ȋ˳TɬĈʫqŗȸHmj8XWmBU<ɐDnM1BncTZøǯT[0ɬĈʫ[Ǎ·×ǼˑX×ɼHmMf0ʲƎɤɁÐʳh·×ǼˑɉȿÐʳXUPSĺ̅UW
l8mÄʾT6m1BZȴʾXQ7Sg0ǪǨƠş0¼ʽĜɽq¼ƚXƃʑFSɍ
ɛq˓fM1cI0Murasugi and Nakatani-Murai (2009), Dejima, Nakatani and Murasugi(2009) [0ļʲZøǯqʑ70´ʲǍÏāZȋ˳;k0½ƌ0ɂĺ0ß̄WVZǻƝ<6l0Bn<u°³ ¨°TʔDnS7mBUqɐH1BnXjl0Ɔì<ǺfSǕ7ȋ˳;k0ʡʲʑȩZōǧǻƝqǡFS7mBU<ǘk;XDnM1
BZɯǰXōR=0Murasugi (2011, 2012) T[0ʡʲʑȩǻƝZñȴčUFSƆì
ZɬĈʫqøǯHm1cM0ɬĈʫq½ǍX˯ŤDnMʡʲʑȩʙɨUFS0ɰʲǼˑZǵƅZŖ˝X×ɼÍ@m Saito and Haraguchi (to appear) Zøǯq^c9S0ʲƎɤɁUʡʲʑȩʙɨ;k÷ɃF0¼˩X×ɼHmǚý0ʖǍǾʻɠZȃʄɤɁq
ȳƖFS7>ʡʲɃ˗¤¬qǁɐHm1ȴņ[0ɬĈʫẊÖHmŲˉ<ª°ʲTgŗȸDnmBU;k0°ŘšZ Liliane Haegeman ȏZđĆqƖS0DkXȎˇɍɛqʑPS7m1̝ ĺ̅Ȩ̞ ǐňu°¬x°ZȚʑhǮǓǧŘ˹ȧZƐ̀Xjl0¯³ ¨hðĬɍɛqƉǣJEmqƖW7ÄƥgȷGM<0ɍɛķ0ɍɛđĆʀZĉĆXjl0ɍɛȘċqʢȽːlX˓fmBU<T=M1ɍɛq˓fS7>XQn0®wZǵƅX˪pmȵʸɄƨǰ<6AknMɍɛ̃ŋUǥNXʤˍɄʿȲXȾcPS7mɍɛ̃ŋ<÷S=M<0Bn[ʈFǑW7gZUɿ9S7m1ÂƢq˃9mƨǰ

-14- 14 -<ƖknS7mBU;k0ÄǹɬÁƓgɍɛqɱɲF0ƨǰqïʔFS7>ƛʙ<
6m1ʸǍ˷ZïùXQ7S[·ˍFMːlT6m<0BnXć90ɍɛƨǰZɃâqɆɄUFMŘʛǿW °v¢gÓȽHmÂŤT6m1
̝ ʪàØý̞ ȍƄƈǦX0ʆžȨǸ²ʪàŎıǞqǁ÷F0šóZʪàqġ@S7m1´ŤZƑĄøư[6mgZZ0ɍɛķîķ<®wîØZȘċXĚćF0cM0ɍɛʀŮʾZï˨u°gŗ>˨èFS7mZT0ƂXóŖ;kɐĸqġ@S:l0KnX÷ǭmN@Ɯ9mj8XFS7m1Ŗ˝ʪà[ťǒFW;PM<0zy³ʸǍ˷ZïùXć90ɍɛʀ<ȝŖZ7pim´ȚZǳʴÍ=¥³¬XʸǍq  ɶïʔFS7m1ǀˈÂŤqįe1Bn[0ǧ®wZɍɛ
<ȝŖX:7Sg̎7ʪàqġ@S7mBUqɐHgZUɿ9S7m1
̝ ɍɛǣ˩ɬÁƓZŶǢ̞ ǧɍɛ®wZɍɛɭɻqɳƵF0ɍɛqɱɲHm1ÊƓ[0ȝŖZɍɛ®wU˒ǃFQQ0½ʙ³ qˎɛFS7>ÂŤT6m1ĭʫģǼˑZ
øǯT[0ĥȢ²ńɝȟʍŘšUZđĆ˪áqɳƵHm1ć9S0u~«²©³
Řš<ĭʫģX˪Hmª£³q½ʙ³ UHmŘʛǿ®wqǠ;k˨ŞHmBUXWPS:l0HTXðĬɍɛZƬOīpJqŞfS7m1t{Řšg  Ǡjlƚȵš²ʡʲšZŘʛǿ®wq˨ŞFS:l0
ǧš<ȆƊWđĆȃ˪UWPS7m1ǍȕǶ0́Ā˱0ʡʲȳƖZɍɛq¼ƚXđĆØýqɱɲFS7>ÂŤT6m1́Ā˱XQ7S[0°«Řš<ɜ́X˪HmŘʛǿɍɛ®wq˔ʑFS:l0ǧš®wZđĆ<ʙʷD
nS7m1DkX0ª°¬ŘšZ˪áɣ®wUg˒ǃZʭFī7
qŞfS7m1ǧƄƈǦZǟɬŎıǞÚƨUɴƴq^c9S0 
ƄƈÏˮZñØ
ɄWɍɛʢȽqÚƨHm<0Ȥç[abǌPS7m1cM0·ˍFMj8X0z
y³ʸǍ˷Zɲɶ:j]Ǔ¼ʲȎˇɰʲʸX˪HmēʎZùʑgʜˡXín
S0ɍɛqɱɲHmÂŤT6m1
̝ ɍɛƨǰZăȅɄĊǰ̞ ǧɍɛ®wZɆɄ[0ȎˇɰʲʸɍɛqŶ˨FSɰʲȵʸZɃŶXŪº
HmBUX6m<0Ȏˇɍɛq^c9MǓǧʲZȆɎWʤˍX:7Sg0Ř=Wƨǰ<6<PS7m1BngįfS0ƨǰqvw·Xï˨F0ńóŖZɍɛʀUð
ǡHmj8XHm1-15- 15 -̓ ̔ } ³¯³̏ƍʮɍɛóũqj> ʔFS7mUƞpnmgZq́̚ɆÏ óTʤˈFS>ND71̐̏̓̐ Ȏˇɰʲʸ    ̏̔̐ Ǜ˕Ǎȕ      ̏̐̕ ª£³  ̖̏̐ ȷƨǍȕ     ̗̏̐ ʡʲȳƖ      ̘̏̐ ʡʲɃ˗   ̙̏̐ ǓǧʲǍȕ    ̏̐̚ ń˵ðĬɍɛ ̓ ̕ ɍ ɛɃʔZȰȓ̏ɍɛʸǍɠïʔ Ȱȓ1Ėþ¼gįe1̐ ʎǞ²šʒʸǍ²šÔɃʔXQ7S[3ɍɛǹɺ´ʝ40 °v¢²šÔɠZťǒȰȓXQ7S[3ȘċŎı4qĚȭDnM71̝u°³TZï˨̞!))'+++&&-&*#'"&,!)%$ ÄǹZɆɄUǻʙ0ɍɛķUŘš˰ȷZɫËŌɟʸǍqįe0u°ZǷó:j]Ŏı0ȃ˪ʰ &-&"& *"()"( ɠqǀˈF0ï˨FS7m1̝ȃ˪ʰ &-&"& *"()"(̞ Ƅ̓Ŀùʑ1ʸǍǋɶUȘċŎıqǀˈF0ńóŖZɍɛȃ˪0ɍɛʀXɃˏF
S7m1
 ɍɛ®wq˔ʑHm˵[0ːƂKZƨǰq˷fMȯûĨqɃʑHm<0ǧ®w¼˩ŎıXQ7S[0zy³Řš÷ȮÔ;kʸǍ˷qùʑHmMf0BnqʑpW;PM1 &-&"& *"()"(   Ƅ Ǡ&-&"& *"()"(   Ƅ Ǡ&-&"& *"()"(  Ƅ  Ǡ&-&"& *"()"(  Ƅ ǠZɆ
ȅXQ7S[0ˀǏ̖qĚȭDnM71̓ ̖ K ZÌZɍɛƨǰɠ ȯXWF1̓ ̗ 3 ˛Ťǚ4ě]3¼˩ʪàǚ4X ÍDnMȾƣÄ́UKn_ZŮƜ̝3˛Ťǚ4XÍDnMȾƣÄ̞́ ʮƍWF̝3¼˩ʪàǚ4XÍDnMȾƣÄ̞́
3T=n\0´ʊɑÔXŮHmɃâgĉĆFMǑ<j74UZCƣʚq7MN7M1-16- 16 -̝3¼˩ʪàǚ4XÍDnMȾƣÄ́_ZŮƜ̞ Ï¸Z´ʊ²š˝ȷĮ@ʺȥÔqǐMXÓȽ²ťǒFM1
2011 Ƅ 3 Ǡ 4 Ǔ (ðè0Ŗńʲš˝ʌɥšɕ½è) Thomas Hun-Tak Lee ȏ (̋ȡ¼ǍŘš) “Logical Structures in Early Child Language” – ƆìʡʲXʚknmʸȵƟ2011 Ƅ 7 Ǡ 8 Ǔ
 Soowon Kim ȏ (s£«{ˬʓɉʡʲŴ)
 “Locative-Marked Agentive Subjects in Korean” – ½ʲǶĈʫZǓ˽ʲȎˇ
2011 Ƅ 9 Ǡ 30 Ǔ Diane Lillo-Martin ȏ (t{Řš) “Sign Language and Language Universals” – ƫʭXdknmÉ˩ʡʲZȯƙ
2012 Ƅ 1 Ǡ 6 Ǔ
 James Douglas Saddy ȏ (­t°Řš) “Measuring Language in the Brain” – ʡʲZʅɕší˧

-17- 17 - 
 2012  
2008  

! =95>A":+ 2BØ 2008 ~ 2012

Ä 24 i !=95><Ä2008 ~ 6  7  (k) 13:30 ~ 17:00[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úKæu 910 ]WÐ 40 d
Satoshi Tomioka (University of Delaware)“Contrastive Topic as Wide(st)-scope Focus”
Kyle Johnson (University of Massachusetts, Amherst)“Fitting a Multidominant Model of Movement to Reconstruction”

Ä 25 i !=95><Ä2008 ~ 7  19 üký13:00 ~ 18:00[zpsd_w8?0$ J ¡ 1 ú2<'?,A":?;A5
Roger Martin (Yokohama National University)“On the Nature of Chains and Agree”
Atsushi Ito (Nanzan University)“NP-movement in Resultatives”
Yoichi Miyamoto (Osaka University)“On the Comparative Operator in Japanese”-21- 21 -]WÐ 33 d<26 i !=95>2008 ~ 7  30 üªý16:00 ~ 17:30[zpsd_w8?0$ J ¡ 1 ú2<'?,A":?;A5 ]WÐ 25 d
Peter Svenonius (University of Tromsø)“On the Timing of Lexical Insertion”

Ä 3 i Êàã>A ":+2><Ä2008 ~ 8  3 üý12:45 ~ 19:00[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úKæu 910 ]WÐ 61 dJuan Uriagereka (University of Maryland)“Re-examining Sub-Extraction: A Response to Stepanov”
Yuji Takano (Kinjo Gakuin University)“Scrambling and Control”
Daiko Takahashi (Tohoku University)“How to Find Antecedents for Argument Ellipsis”
Howard Lasnik (University of Maryland)“‘Raising to Object’ in Small Clauses and Full Clauses”-22- 22 -<Tsing Hua-CUHK-Nanzan Joint Workshop on Comparative Syntax and Language
Acquisition>2008 ~ 9  17 üªý14:00 ~ 17:00[zpsd_w8?0$ J ¡ 5 ú L5 ]WÐ 30 d
Mamoru Saito (Nanzan University)“Semantic and Discourse Interpretation of the Japanese Left Periphery”
Hui-Yu Huang (National Chiao Tung University)“Ambiguity in the [V u/bo NP] Construction in Taiwanese”
Jhao-Ling Li (National Tsing Hua University)“The Syntax of Prefix Concord in Saaroa”
2008 ~ 9  18 üý14:00 ~ 17:00[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úKæu 910 ]WÐ 28 d
T.-H. Jonah Lin (National Tsing Hua University)“Occurrence of Event and Locative Subjects in Mandarin Chinese”
Yasuki Ueda (Nanzan University)“On Plurality in Japanese”
Hui-Chin Tsai (National Tsing Hua University)“Modifier Licensing in Chinese Noun Phrase”
Chung-Yu Yang (National Tsing Hua University)“Intervention Effects as Minimality and Competition Effects”
Mayumi Dejima, Tomomi Nakatani, and Keiko Murasugi (Nanzan University)“The Emergence of Speech Act Phrase: Evidence from a Longitudinal Study of two
Japanese-speaking Infants”
Thomas Hun-Tak Lee and Aijun Huang (Chinese University of Hong Kong)“The Count-Mass Distinction in Chinese and the Acquisition of Classifiers”-23- 23 -<The First Workshop of the Nanzan International Research Project on Comparative
Syntax and Language Acquisition>2008 ~ 11  22 üký14:00 ~ 16:00[zpsd_w8?0$ J ¡ 1 ú2<'?,A":?;A5 ]WÐ 35 d
Masashi Nomura (Chukyo University)“How is It that Nominative Case Can Surface on NPs Other than Finite Subjects?”
Hideki Kishimoto (Kobe University)“Some Issues on the Syntax and Morphology of Arguments”
2008 ~ 11  23 üý10:00 ~ 17:00[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úKæu 910 ]WÐ 33 dHiroshi Aoyagi (Nanzan University)“On the Left-edge Puzzle: How Does Scrambling Interact with Semantics andInformation Structure?”
Yuji Takano (Kinjo Gakuin University)“Scrambling and the Theory of Movement”
Keiko Murasugi (Nanzan University)“Underspecification of Functional Heads in Language Acquisition”
Koji Sugisaki (Mie University)“Evaluating Syntactic Analyses with Children:
The Case of Swiping and Intensional Transitives”
Yoichi Miyamoto (Osaka University)“On Ways of Measurement and Structure of NP”-24- 24 -<The Second Workshop of the Nanzan International Research Project on Comparative
Syntax and Language Acquisition>2009 ~ 1  15 üý15:30 ~ 18:15[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu 910 ]WÐ 35 d
Duk-Ho An (Nanzan University)“On the Nature of Genitive Case in Korean: With Reference to Japanese”
Shigeru Miyagawa (MIT)“Distinguishing A and A’ Movements without Reference to Case”-25- 25 -<The Third Workshop of the Nanzan International Research Project on Comparative
Syntax and Language Acquisition>2009 ~ 3  15 üý10:00 ~ 18:30[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu 910 ]WÐ 53 d
W.-T. Dylan Tsai (National Tsing Hua University)“EPP as a Topic Feature: Evidence from Chinese Applicatives and Reflexive Adverbials”
Daiko Takahashi (Tohoku University)“Comparative Syntax of Argument Ellipsis”
Yasuki Ueda (Nanzan University)“Number in Classifier Languages”
R. Amritavalli (EFL University, Hyderabad)“Case and Phi-features”
Hiroyuki Ura (Kansei Gakuin University)“Some Notes on the Interaction of Case with Subjecthood”
K. A. Jayaseelan (EFL University, Hyderabad)“Case Hierarchy and Theories of Case”-26- 26 -<The Fourth Workshop of the Nanzan International Research Project on Comparative
Syntax and Language Acquisition>2009 ~ 7  25 üký15:30 ~ 18:30[zpsd_w8?0$ F ¡ 13 u ]WÐ 30 d
Lin-Yu Madelaine Chien (National Tsing Hua University)“The Acquisition of Transitive Predicates in Mandarin Chinese”
Tomohiro Fujii (Yokohama National University)“Nominalizing Complementizers and Control/Raising”
2009 ~ 7  26 üý10:00 ~ 17:30[zpsd_w8?0$ JB12 u]WÐ 32 dMamoru Saito (Nanzan University)“Clause Types and the Japanese Right Periphery”
Hui-Chin Joyce Tsai (National Tsing Hua University)“Remarks on Ordinal Constructions in Mandarin Chinese”
Takashi Munakata (Yokohama National University)“The Division of C-I and its Consequences”
Tzong-Hong Jonah Lin (National Tsing Hua University)“Finiteness of Clauses and QR”-27- 27 -<ÄÄ 27 i !=95>2009 ~ 9  3 üý16:30 ~ 18:00[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu 910]WÐ 45 d
Hideki Kishimoto (Kobe University)“Experiencer Subjects and Transitive Nominals in Japanese”<The Fifth Workshop of the Nanzan International Research Project on Comparative
Syntax and Language Acquisition>2009 ~ 9  13 üý14:00 ~ 18:30[zpsd_w8?0$ D ¡ 3 ú D32 u ]WÐ 48 d
Yuji Takano (Kinjo Gakuin University)“Postposing in Japanese and Turkish”
Kensuke Takita (Nanzan University) and Barry C.-Y. Yang (National United University)“Feature Valuation and Antisuperiority”
Jun Abe (Tohoku Gakuin University)“Oblique vs. Remnant Movement: A Case of Japanese Multiple Sluicing”
Daiko Takahashi and Hiroko Kimura (Tohoku University)“A Wh-in-situ Analysis of Sluicing”-28- 28 -<The Sixth Workshop of the Nanzan International Research Project on Comparative
Syntax and Language Acquisition>2009 ~ 10  28 üªý13:00 ~ 18:00[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu 910 ]WÐ 28 d
Koji Sugisaki (Mie University)“Configurational Structure in Child Japanese”
Keiko Murasugi, Tomomi Nakatani, and Chisato Fuji (Nanzan University)“The Roots of Root Infinitive Analogues: The Surrogate Verb Forms Common in Adult andChild Grammars”
Naoko Sawada, Keiko Murasugi, and Chisato Fuji (Nanzan University)“A Theoretical Account for the ‘Erroneous’ Genitive Subjects in Child Japanese and theSpecification of Tense”
Aafke Hulk (University of Amsterdam)“The Role of Gender and Number Features in the L1/L2 Acquisition of Determiners and(Pro)nouns: A Cross-linguistic Perspective”

ï Ìä­K><ï
2009 ~ 12  12 üký13:00 ~ 18:00
2009 ~ 12  13 üý10:00 ~ 11:30[zpsd_w8?0$ J ¡ 1 ú2<'?,A":?;A5]WÐ 30 d
Hisatsugu Kitahara (Keio University)“Narrow Syntax in Minimalism:
Syntactic Operations and Their Applications”-29- 29 -<ÄÄ 28 i !=95>2009 ~ 12  19  15:00 ~ 16:30[zpsd_w8?0$ D ¡ 3 ú 33 u]WÐ 18 dJunri Shimada (Keio University)“A New Outlook on Head Movement”

Ä 29 i !=95><Ä2010 ~ 1  9  13:30 ~ 17:00[zpsd_w8?0$ D ¡ 3 ú D32 u]WÐ 21 dNilufer ener (University of Connecticut)“On the Relation between Evidentiality and Free Choice Herhangi bir in Turkish”
Serkan ener (University of Connecticut)“Phrases of Nouns in Turkish”-30- 30 -<The Seventh Workshop of the Nanzan International Research Project on Comparative
Syntax and Language Acquisition>2010 ~ 1  31 üý10:00 ~ 18:00[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu 910 ]WÐ 36 d
Tomohiro Fujii (Yokohama National University) and Kensuke Takita (Nanzan University)“Wh-adverbials in-situ in Japanese and Mandarin Chinese”
Rahul Balusu (EFL University)“The Semantics of Reduplicative Numerals in Telugu”
Naoko Sawada and Keiko Murasugi (Nanzan University)“‘Erroneous’ Genitive Subjects in Child Grammar”
B. R. Srivatsa (EFL University)“Word Order in Sanskrit”
Hideki Kishimoto (Kobe University)“Dative/Genitive Subjects in Japanese: A Comparative Perspective”
K. A. Jayaseelan (EFL University)“The Syntax of the Dative Case”

ä ­K> n jàsòÔÆsÀHP@Úà s½Â&?(ASP<ä2010 ~ 2  22 üý13:30 ~ 17:30[zpsd_w8?0$ M ¡ 1 ú MB1 ]WÐ 42 d
Masatake Arimoto (Nanzan University)“Introduction: Basics in Binding”
Kamil Deen (University of Hawai'i)“Binding in Thai: The Case for Nativism”
Keiko Murasugi (Nanzan University)“Introduction to Grammar Acquisition”
Bonnie Schwartz (University of Hawai'i)“Let's Go on a Hawaiian Tour (of Child L2 Acquisition)”-31- 31 -<The Eighth Workshop of the Nanzan International Research Project on Comparative
Syntax and Language Acquisition>2010 ~ 3  14 üý10:00 ~ 18:00[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu 910 ]WÐ 37 d
Daiko Takahashi (Tohoku University)“Argument Ellipsis, Anti-agreement, and Scrambling”
Yoichi Miyamoto (Osaka University)“On Chinese Relative Clauses and NP-Ellipsis”
Kensuke Takita (Nanzan University) and Barry C.-Y. Yang (National UnitedUniversity)“Feature Valuation and Antisuperiority
Hiroyuki Ura (Kwansei Gakuin University)“Dative Subjects and Impersonals in Null-subject Languages”
Yuji Takano (Kinjo Gakuin University)“A Comparative Approach to Japanese Postposing”
Hajime Takeuchi (Nanzan University)“Exceptional Case Marking in Japanese and Optional Feature Inheritance

ä ­K>
<ä
2010 ~ 5  15 üký14:00 ~ 17:00[zpsd_w8?0$ J ¡lE 1 ú JB12 u ]WÐ 61 dçÓ¨ (Rice University)“On the Typology of Relative Clauses”-32- 32 -<ÄÄ 30 i !=95>2010 ~ 7  31 üký16:30 ~ 18:00[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu 910 ]WÐ 33 dv¸Îé¨üCôpsý
ÉËBÒY¶ã
þÊà"$,5?(A1$ëí6.%5þ<The Ninth Workshop of the Nanzan International Research Project on Comparative
Syntax and Language Acquisition>2010 ~ 9  12 üý10:00 ~ 18:10[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu 910 ]WÐ 42 d
Pei-Jung Kuo (National Chiayi University)“Applicative Projections in the vP Periphery”
Kazunori Kikushima (National Tsing Hua University)“High Applicative and Transference Verbs in Japanese and Mandarin Chinese”
Duk-Ho An (Konkuk University)“Issues on Case in Korean”
Hajime Takeuchi (Nanzan University)“Exceptional Case Marking in Japanese and Optional Feature Transmission”
Jui-Yi Zoey Chung (National Tsing Hua University)“Investigating the Syntax of Postverbal Modal in Hakka”
Masao Ochi (Osaka University)“Numeral Classifier and Extended Nominal Projections in Japanese (and Chinese)”-33- 33 -<ÄÄ 31 i !=95>2010 ~ 11  13 üký10:00 ~ 12:45[zpsd_w8?0$ D ¡ 3 ú D33 ]WÐ 25 d
Stephanie Solt (ZAS Berlin)“The Semantics of Quantity Adjectives”
William McClure and Mamori Sugita (Queens College and the CUNY Graduate Center)“Progressive, Perfective, and Experiential: A Unified Semantics for Te-iru”<The Tenth Workshop of the Nanzan International Research Project on Comparative
Syntax and Language Acquisition>2010 ~ 11  13 üký14:15 ~ 17:00[zpsd_w8?0$ D ¡ 3 ú D33 ]WÐ 25 d
Koji Sugisaki (Mie University)“The Acquisition of Argument Ellipsis in Japanese”
Tomomi Nakatani and Keiko Murasugi (Nanzan University)“The Use of Onomatopoeia as Root Infinitives in Child Japanese”-34- 34 -<ÄÄ 32 i !=95>2010 ~ 11  25 üý17:00 ~ 18:45[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu

]WÐ 18 dFriederike Moltmann (IHPST, Paris)“Identificational Sentences”

Ä 33 i !=95><Ä2010 ~ 12  3 üöý17:00 ~ 18:30[zpsd_w8?0$ D ¡ D34 ]WÐ 20 dO¦ ì (pøps)
1A$fãºbā§Ñ-35- 35 -<ÄÄ 34 i !=95>2010 ~ 12  17 üöý15:15 ~ 16:45[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu
·G ¿g (University of York)Ôà»ºàÊàºLÍ]WÐ 37 dÄ 35 i !=95>
<Ä2011 ~ 2  15 ü¯ý16:00 ~ 17:30[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu
Norbert Hornstein (University of Maryland)“In Defense of Sidewards Movement”-36- 36 -]WÐ 33 dÄ ÿi½ÂK j Ãjà½ÂSc½
½ Â2
2 =#
<Ä
(Úàs½Â&?(ASP)
2011 ~ 2  19 üký13:30 ~ 18:40[zpsd_w8?0$ D ¡ D34 ]WÐ 46 d} Èa (Côps)"Constraints on Argument Ellipsis in Child Japanese"Gç ^Î@HÅFtÜr ([zps)/4-3r ([zps)
QÚà´Úào£Úà´Ûã
³Uä­āû¦ p\ (Zps)"Parallelism for Argument Ellipsis"
2011 ~ 2  20 üý10:00 ~ 11:50[zpsd_w8?0$ D ¡ D34 ]WÐ 42 dÕ Ö ([zps)Nb ß`JáTÏ| ¿¥ (¾ps)
àÐD

-37- 37 --><ÔÔ ÆsÀ GP H Pä­K> (Úàs½Â&?(ASP)
2011 ~ 3  4 ü¯ý13:30 ~ 15:00[zpsd_w8?0$ B ¡ 4 ú B46 u ]WÐ 24 dThomas Hun-Tak Lee (The Chinese University of Hong Kong)“Logical Structures in Early Child Language”

Ä 36 i !=95>
<Ä2011 ~ 3  5 ü¯ý13:30 ~ 18:00[zpsd_w8?0$ J ¡ 1 ú P ;A5]WÐ 31 d

Hiroaki Tada (Fukuoka University)“Quantificational state descriptions in Japanese”
Takuya Goro (Ibaraki University)“The rise of logical connectives in first and second language acquisition”
Thomas Hun-Tak Lee and Margaret Ka-yan Lei (The Chinese Univeristy of Hong-Kong)“Acquisition of the postverbal universal quantifier affix in Chinese”-38- 38 -<ÄÄ 37 i !=95>
2011 ~ 5  27 üöý17:00 ~ 18:30[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu

]WÐ 30 d

Hideaki Yamashita“What Makes Right Dislocation of Wh-elements in Tokyo Japanese and Yatsushiro Japanese(Im)Possible?”<ää ­K>
2011 ~ 7  8 üöý15:15 ~ 16:45[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu

]WÐ 43 d

Soowon Kim (U.S. Defense Language Institute)“Locative-Marked Agentive Subjects in Korean”<The Eleventh Workshop of the Nanzan International Research Project on
Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition>2011 ~ 7  9 üký13:00 ~ 18:30[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu ]WÐ 38 d
Mamoru Saito (Nanzan University)“What is Japanese Case for: Agree or Merge?”
Duk-Ho An (Konkuk University)“On Complementizers in Korean and Japanese”
Hideki Kishimoto (Kobe University)“Case and Subject Raising in Japanese”
Soowon Kim (U.S. Defense Language Institute)“Syntactic Case, Arguments, and Adjuncts”-39- 39 -

<ä
ä ­K>
2011 ~ 9  30 üöý15:15 ~ 16:45[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu

]WÐ 40 d

Diane Lillo-Martin (University of Connecticut)“Sign Language and linguistic Universals”<The Twelfth Workshop of the Nanzan International Research Project on Comparative
Syntax and Language Acquisition>2011 ~ 10  1 üký10:30 ~ 17:30[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu ]WÐ 30 d
Yoichi Miyamoto (Osaka University)“On (the Absence of) Adjunct Condition Effects in Japanese”
Kazumi Matsuoka (Keio University)“Where Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics Interact: Young Children’s Interpretation of
Focus Particles in Japanese”
Keiko Murasugi (Nanzan University)“Peripheral Particles in Early Child Japanese”
Diane Lillo-Martin (University of Connecticut)“Language Architecture: Evidence from the Development of Bimodal Bilingualism”-40- 40 -<ÄÄ 38 i !=95>
2011 ~ 10  22 üöý10:30 ~ 17:00[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu

]WÐ 23 dKoichi Otaki (Mie University)“Null Arguments in Kaqchikel and Their Theoretical Implications”
Naoyuki Akaso (Nagoya Gakuin University) and Tomoko Haraguchi (Nanzan University)“Adverbs and Nominative/Genitive Conversion in Japanese Relative Clauses”
Julio Villa-García (University of Connectiut)“The Spanish CP Layer: Evidence from Recomplementation Patterns”
Kensuke Takita (Tohoku University)“Pseudo-right Dislocation and the Bare Topic Construction in Japanese”-41- 41 -<ÄÄ 39 i !=95>
2011 ~ 12  17 üký10:30 ~ 17:00[zpsd_w8?0$ J ¡ 1 ú P ;A5]WÐ 35 d

Jun Abe (Tohoku Gakuin University)“The Residue of NIC and Super-Raising: An Examination of Japanese A-Movement”
Hidekazu Tanaka (University of York)“(Quantificational) Objects at the Edges”
Mamoru Saito (Nanzan University)“Two Notes on Feature Inheritance: A Parametric Variation in the Distribution of the EPP”
George Tsoulas (University of York)“Phases and Interpretation”
Hiroaki Tada (Fukuoka University)“On Deriving the Monotonicity Constraint on MPs: A View from QSDs in Japanese”

ä ­K>
<ä
2012 ~ 1  6 üöý15:15 ~ 16:45[zpsd_w8?0$ J ¡ 1 ú P ;A5James Douglas Saddy (University of Reading)“Measuring Language in the Brain”-42- 42 -]WÐ 29 d<ÄÄ 40 i !=95>2012 ~ 1  7 üký10:30 ~ 12:00[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu

]WÐ 37 dJames Douglas Saddy (University of Reading)“Where do Grammars come from?”<The Thirteenth Workshop of the Nanzan International Research Project on
Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition>2012 ~ 2  20 üý13:00 ~ 17:30[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu ]WÐ 26 d
Keiko Murasugi (Nanzan University)“Tense and Peripheral Particles in Child Japanese”
Tomoko Haraguchi (Nanzan University)“Distributions of Modals and Sentence Final Particles: Selection or Something Else?”
Liliane Haegeman (Universiteit Gent)“The Movement Derivation of Adverbial Clauses and its Implications for the Encoding of
Focus and Emphasis”-43- 43 -<ÄÄ 41 i !=95>2012 ~ 2  21 ü¯ý10:30 ~ 12:00[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu

]WÐ 33 d

Liliane Haegeman (Universiteit Gent)“The Derivation of Factive Clauses”

Ä 3 i ½ÂK j Ãjà½ÂSc½Â2=# -><Ä(Úàs½Â&?(ASP)
2012 ~ 3  7 üªý10:00 ~ 18:00[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu ]WÐ 26 dÕ Ö ([zps)QàyHà Finite Head ê| ¿¥ (¾ps)
àÅ¢îàß`HÅFtÅµè r ([zps)HÅFtÜâÞFmYÜQ¬¢î} Èa (Côps)ðºVÇ¹×āÔàMõ hI («sùps)±°¤åQÙóÁXµè´-44- 44 -<The Fourteenth Workshop of the Nanzan International Research Project on
Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition>2012 ~ 3  8 üý10:30 ~ 15:00[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu ]WÐ 28 d
Tomohiro Fujii (Yokohama National University)“The Calculus of Control and Lack of Overt Agreement Morphology”
Ryosuke Shibagaki“Syntax-Semantics Interface in Chinese Secondary Predication”
Yuji Takano (Kinjo Gakuin University)“Movement of Antecedents”

Ä 42 i !=95><Ä2012 ~ 6  9 üöý17:15 ~ 18:45[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu

]WÐ 25 d

Tsuyoshi Sawada (University of Connecticut)“Japanese Inflection, Interpretability, and Distributed Morphology”-45- 45 -<ÄÄ 43 i !=95>2012 ~ 7  5 üý17:15 ~ 18:45[zpsd_w8?0$ J ¡ 1 ú P ;A5]WÐ 23 d²{ ñq (¼ps)
4;*7A);©Ýs(ethnopoetics)x÷e

Ä 44 i !=95><Ä2012 ~ 7  14 üký16:00 ~ 17:30[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu

]WÐ 27 dMasahiko Takahashi (University of Maryland)“Case Marking in Japanese and Phases: Evidence from Nominative/Accusative Conversion”-46- 46 -<The Fifteenth Workshop of the Nanzan International Research Project on
Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition>2012 ~ 7  28 üký10:0018:15[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu ]WÐ 43 d
Mamoru Saito (Nanzan University)“The Pred Projection and the EPP”
Maia Duguine (University of the Basque Country)“Ellipsis of DPs and the Typology of Pro-drop”
Daiko Takahashi (Tohoku University)“Looking at Argument Ellipsis Derivationally”
James McCloseky (University of California, Santa Cruz)“Polarity, Ellipsis, and the Limits of Identity in Irish”
2012 ~ 7  29 üý10:0016:00[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu

]WÐ 39 d

Kensuke Takita (Mie University)“On XP/X0-asymmetries in Extractions from Ellipsis Sites”
Yoichi Miyamoto (Osaka University)“On Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-Ellipsis”
Sandra Chung (University of California, Santa Cruz)“Limited Syntactic Identity in Sluicing”-47- 47 -<ÄÄ 45 i !=95>2012 ~ 8  2 üý17:15 ~ 19:30[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu

]WÐ 24 dShin-Sook Kim (University of York)“Wh- and NPI-Intervention Effects: Are They the Same of Different?”Peter Sells (University of York)“Unpredicated Particles in English”

Ä 46 i !=95><Ä2012 ~ 9  1 üký16:00 ~ 17:30[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu

]WÐ 21 dGünther Grewendorf (Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main)“Case and Agreement in Free Relatives”-48- 48 -<The Sixteenth Workshop of the Nanzan International Research Project on
Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition>2012 ~ 9  9 üý10:0018:15[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu ]WÐ 26 d
Seichi Sugawa (Nanzan University)"Case and Selectional Properties"
Ting Xu (University of Connecticut)"Do We Need the Semantic Subset Principle? On the Acquisition of again in Goal-PP
Constructions"
Atsushi Sato (Nanzan University)"Interpreting Relative Clause Processing as Ambiguity Resolution"
Ryosuke Shibagaki (Nanzan University)"Recapturing Chinese V-V Constructions: between Complex Predicate and Compound Verb"
Koji Sugisaki (Mie University)"Ellipsis of Arguments and Adjuncts in Child Japanese"
Lyn Tieu (University of Connecticut)"Going Wide: 4-year-olds' Knowledge of 'any'"-49- 49 -<jj Ãjà½ÂSc½ Â2=# -R÷ä­K> (Úàs½Â&?(ASP)
2012 ~ 10  31  (ª) 16:30ă18:00[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu ]WÐ 26 dSusan Fischer"Historical Change in Sign Languages"

Ä 47 i !=95><Ä2012 ~ 12  22 üký16:00 ~ 18:00[zpsd_w8?0$ J ¡lE 1 ú JB12

]WÐ 16 d®· « (Côps)“An Utterance Situation-based Comparison: The Case of the Japanese Comparative Adverb
motto”-50- 50 -Ä 5 i ½ÂK j Ãjà½ÂSc½Â2=# -><Ä(Úàs½Â&?(ASP)
2012 ~ 12  23 üý16:00 ~ 17:30[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu ]WÐ 31 d
Thomas Hun-tak Lee and Zhuang Wu (Chinese University of Hong Kong)“The Acquisition of Nominal Structure, Word Order and Referentiality in Chinese: Corpus
and Experimental Findings”
Koji Sugisaki (Mie University)“On the Learnability of Japanese Scrambling”
Hiromu Sakai (Hiroshima University)“Cognitive Neuroscience of Linguistic Diversity - A View from an ERP Study on Japanese
Honorific Processing -”Mamoru Saito (Nanzan University)“On the Role of Selection in Syntactic Word Formation”
Thomas Hun-tak Lee (Chinese University of Hong Kong)“Comments on the Issues Presented in the Workshop”

Ä 48 i !=95><Ä2013 ~ 1  12 üký15:30 ~ 17:00[zpsd_w8?0$ L ¡ 9 úpKæu
· G ¿ g (University of York)“Right-Dislocation, Ellipsis, and Island Repair”-51- 51 -]WÐ 14 d

<The Seventeenth Workshop of the Nanzan International Research Project on
Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition>2013 ~ 2  16  (k)[zpsd_w8?0$ Ă¡ĀúpKæu ]WÐ 45 d
Keiko Murasugi (Nanzan University)“Steps in the Emergence of Full Syntactic Structure in Child Grammar”
Koji Sugisaki (Mie University)“VP-internal Subjects in Child English Revisited”
Yoichi Miyamoto (Osaka University)“On the Availability of NP-Ellipsis with Japanese and Chinese Relative Clauses”
Hideki Kishimoto (Kobe University)“Subject Raising and NPI Licensing in Japanese”
Daiko Takahashi (Tohoku University)“Argument Ellipsis and Agreement”
2013 ~ 2  16  (k) ă17  ()[zpsd_w8?0$ Ă¡ĀúpKæu ]WÐ 37 d
Mamoru Saito (Nanzan University)“Ways of Phrase Structure Construction: From Morphology to Pragmatics”
Tomohiro Fujii (Yokohama National University)“(N)OC into Verbal Noun Phrases”
Hisatsugu Kitahara (Keio University)“Simplest Merge and Language Variation”
Yuji Takano (Kinjo Gakuin University)“Extending Movement Derivations from Control to Binding”-52- 52 -<The Eighteenth Workshop of the Nanzan International Research Project on
Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition>2013 ~ 3  10  () ă11  ()[zpsd_w8?0$ Ă¡ĀúpKæu ]WÐ 68 d
W.-T. Dylan Tsai (National Tsing Hua University)“Merging Prepositions VP-externally in Chinese - A Cartographic View”
Emilio Servidio (University of Siena)“Responding Particles and Polarity Focus in Italian”
Yoshio Endo (Kanda University of International Studies)“Information Structure and Criterial Freezing”
Seng-Hian Lau (National Tsing Hua University)“A Cartographic Analysis of BE in Taiwan Southern Min and Mandarin: From a Comparative
Perspective”
Keiko Murasugi (Nanzan University)“Discourse Particles in Child Grammar and the Truncation Hypothesis”
Adriana Belletti (University of Siena)“Extraposition and Predication in Clefts”
2013 ~ 3  10  () ă11  ()[zpsd_w8?0$ Ă¡ĀúpKæu ]WÐ 70 d
Duk-Ho An (Konkuk University)“Red Herrings in NP-ellipsis Research in Korean”
Kensuke Takita (Mie University)“Identity in Ellipsis: A View from Antecedent-Contained Sluicing”
Claudia Manetti and Adriana Belletti (University of Siena)“Causative and the Acquisition of Italian Passive”
Mamoru Saito (Nanzan University)“Case as an Anti-Labeling Device”
Ching-Yu Yang (National Tsing Hua University)“The Ins and Outs of ‘lian … dou’ Constructions in Mandarin Chinese”
Luigi Rizzi (University of Siena)“Criteria and Labeling”-53- 53 --54- 54 - 
2008  2012  ǘ ŋkëë ǜǷĺkëƚǞm ǩ
A. ǘ ŋkëǜǷĺȽ ëơƭÈȾĻǙ ǝ
Saito, Mamoru (2008) “Argument Ellipsis, Radical Pro-Drop, and (the Absence of) Agreement.”
In Yoshiaki Kaneko, Akira Kikuchi, Daiko Takahashi, Yoshiki Ogawa and Etsuro Shimaeds., The State of the Art in Linguistics Research: The Interface of Form and Meaning,
Kaitakusha, Tokyo, 154-172.
Saito, Mamoru, T.-H. Jonah Lin, and Keiko Murasugi (2008) “N’-Ellipsis and the Structure of
Noun Phrases in Chinese and Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17, 247-271.
Miyagawa, Shigeru and Mamoru Saito, eds. (2008) The Oxford Handbook of Japanese
Linguistics, Oxford University Press, New York.
Saito, Mamoru and Kensuke Takita (2009) “On the Variety of Movements to the vP Edge,” ƒŕȢçkĂŕƦŦ(ƿ)ǲĕ!ģÅĺŵ, 4 Ƈ, 307-329.
Saito, Mamoru (2009) “Optional A-Scrambling,” Japanese/Korean Linguistics 16, 44-63.
Saito, Mamoru (2010) “Semantic and Discourse Interpretation of the Japanese Left Periphery.” In
Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Lisa Rochman eds., The Sound Patterns of Syntax, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 140-173.
Saito, Mamoru (2010) “On the Scope Properties of Nominative Phrases in Japanese.” In Rajat
Mohanty and Mythili Menon eds., Universals and Variation: Proceedings of GLOW in
Asia VII, EFL University Press, Hyderabad, 313-333.
Saito, Mamoru and Duk-Ho An (2010) “A Comparative Syntax of Ellipsis in Japanese andKorean.” In Hiroki Maezawa and Azusa Yokogoshi eds., Proceedings of the 6thWorkshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 6), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics
61, 287-307.
Saito, Mamoru (2010) “On the Nature of the Complementizer To,” Journal of Japanese
Linguistics 26 (Special Issue in Memory of S.-Y. Kuroda), 85-100.
Saito, Mamoru (2011) “Two Notes on Feature Inheritance: A Parametric Variation in theDistribution of the EPP,” Nanzan Linguistics 7, 43-61.
Saito, Mamoru (2012) “Case Checking/Valuation in Japanese: Move, Agree or Merge,” Nanzan
Linguistics 8, 109-127.

-57- 57 -Saito, Mamoru (2012) “Semantic and Discourse Effects of Scrambling.” In Bjarke Frellesvig,
Jieun Kiaer and Janick Wrona eds., Studies in Japanese and Korean Linguistics, Lincom
GmbH, München, 146-172.
Saito, Mamoru (2012) “Sentence Types and the Japanese Right Periphery.” In Günther
Grewendorf and Thomas Ede Zimmermann eds., Discourse and Grammar: From
Sentence Types to Lexical Categories, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 147-176.
Saito, Mamoru and Tomoko Haraguchi (2012) “Deriving the Cartography of the Japanese Right
Periphery: The Case of Sentence-Final Particles,” Iberia: An International Journal of
Theoretical Linguistics 4.2 (Special Issue in Honor of AndrewRadford), 104-123.

ȟȓ ŷńȟȓŷńk¤Ƒ$+ (2010) ĖóǯkĖó¬ǯ!üī6,, Łŕĺ­ëƨǷȦ10», °āâë, 37-63.
ȟȓŷń (2010)ĺ!ģÅƞĠ, ƂƑųǄ (ƿ) $ģÅǸĒȸȼǲȷĺŵ?N
Edl!ģÅ, $ŋĩ, 45-68.

Ȩŝ î
Ȩŝî (2008) 1ǯ!ĖĤƛƾǲƛģÅƛ&2* —ªǯ¦ªǯ ȯ!ŏģĠ6rĜ —,ŁŕǲĺŵƱ8Ĉ2», 37-53.

Aoyagi, Hiroshi and Sachiko Kato (2009) “On Information Packaging of Topicalized andScrambled Sentences in Japanese,” Proceedings of the 18th International Congress ofLinguists, Linguistic Society of Korea, 1-19.
Aoyagi, Hiroshi (2010) “On the Asymmetry in Passives between Japanese and Korean,” JELS 27,
ŁŕǓǲë, 11-20.
Ȩŝî (2011)Łŕǲ
2 Žǧ¢ksȭ­ĢÙţȈ, țǹąç ( ƿ) ƾǲǷ!ľþȜŁŕǲơƭȼÆȭ6ǿ , ȜĭƢ, 193-226.

ŏ ø¥ŏø¥ (2009)ŘǁEPP,8?O\8 (ĺëkǲëƿ)Ʊ85 », °āâë, 29-45.
ŏø¥ (2009)ǚȃ!Ʃ¬EPP,8?O\8 (ĺëkǲëƿ)Ʊ86 », °āâë, 133.
ŏø¥ (2011) Łŕǲ!Copular ClausesǇ,8?O\8 (ĺëkǲëƿ)Ʊ 89 » ,--5858 -°āâë, 97-126.

ŗŖ ġç
Murasugi, Keiko (2008) “Sentential Modifiers in a Discourse-Pro Language.” In Yoshiaki
Kaneko, Akira Kikuchi, Daiko Takahashi, Yoshiki Ogawa and Etsuro Shima eds., The
State of the Art in Linguistic Research: The Interface of Form and Meaning, Kaitakusha,
Tokyo, 115-133.
Murasugi, Keiko and Koji Sugisaki (2008) “The Acquisition of Japanese Syntax.” In Shigeru
Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito eds., The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics,
Oxford University Press, New York, 250-286.
Fuji, Chisato, Tomoko Hashimoto, and Keiko Murasugi (2008) “A Theoretical Account for theUndergeneration and the Overgeneration in Japanese Complex Predicates.” In Harvey
Chan, Enkeleida Kapia and Heather Jacob eds., Online Proceedings Supplement of
Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 32.
Fuji, Chisato, Tomoko Hashimoto, and Keiko Murasugi (2008) “A VP-shell Analysis for theUndergeneration and the Overgeneration in the Acquisition of Japanese Causatives andPotentials,” Nanzan Linguistics 4, 21-41.
Saito, Mamoru, T.-H. Jonah Lin, and Keiko Murasugi (2008) “N’-Ellipsis and the Structure of
Noun Phrases in Chinese and Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17, 247-271.
Murasugi, Keiko and Chisato Fuji (2009) “Root Infinitives in Japanese and the Late Acquisitionof Head-Movement.” In Jane Chandlee, Michelle Franchini, Sandy Lord and Marion
Rheiner eds., Online Proceedings Supplement of Boston University Conference on
Language Development (BUCLD) 33.
Murasugi, Keiko and Tomomi Nakatani-Murai (2009) “The Ontology of Functional Categories.”
In Nguyen Chi Duy Khuong, Richa and Samar Sinha eds., the 5th Asian GLOW:
Conference Proceedings, Central Institute of Indian Language, Mysore, India, 152-165.
Murasugi, Keiko and Eriko Watanabe (2009) “Case Errors in Child Japanese and the Implication
for the Syntactic Theory.” In Jean Crawford, Koichi Otaki and Masahiko Takahashi eds.,
Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition
North America (GALANA 2008), Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, Mass.,
153-164.
Crain, Stephen, Rosalind Thornton, and Keiko Murasugi (2009) “Capturing the Evasive Passive,”
Language Acquisition 16, 123-133.
Dejima, Mayumi, Tomomi Nakatani, and Keiko Murasugi (2009) “The Emergence of Speech Act
Phrase: Evidence from a Longitudinal Study of Two Japanese-Speaking Infants,”-59- 59 -Nanzan Linguistics 5, 17-39.
rǹ´ǄkŗŖġç (2009) ǬǲƊě
2sƴpðǯƌǺȼǂļƛǪõƛơƭ,
8?O\8 ( ĺëkǲëƿ)Ʊ86 », °āâë, 59-94.

Murasugi, Keiko, Tomomi Nakatani, and Chisato Fuji (2010) “The Roots of Root Infinitive
Analogues: The Surrogate Verb Forms Common in Adult and Child Grammar.” In Katie
Franich, Kate Mesh Iserman and Lauren Keil eds., Online Proceedings Supplement of
Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 34.
Sawada, Naoko, Keiko Murasugi, and Chisato Fuji (2010) “A Theoretical Account for the‘Erroneous’ Genitive Subjects in Child Japanese and the Specification of Tense.” In
Katie Franich, Kate Mesh Iserman and Lauren Keil eds., Online Proceedings Supplementof Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 34.
Murasugi, Keiko, Chisato Fuji, and Tomoko Hashimoto (2010) “What’s Acquired Later in an
Agglutinative Language,” Nanzan Linguistics 6, 47-78.
Murasugi, Keiko (2010) “The Onset of Complex NPs in Child Production.” In Hiroki Maezawa
and Azusa Yokogoshi eds., Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Altaic Formal
Linguistics (WAFL 6), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 61, 27-47.
rǹ´ǄkŗŖġç (2010) ǬǲƊě
2sƴpðǯßƬ!Ǣ¬ǯȼǂļƛǪõƛơƭ,8?O\8 ( ĺëkǲëƿ)Ʊ87 », °āâë, 13-60.

Murasugi, Keiko (2011) “Japanese Syntax: Implications from Language Acquisition.” In Setsuko
Arita et al., eds., Studies in Language Sciences 10: Papers from the 10th Annual
Conference of the Japanese Society for Language Sciences, Kuroshio Publishers, Tokyo,
17-39.
ŗŖġç (2011) ď!ǳ16ǪĽ() ŉȊĺŵ6Ɵ2 , ǙȪç  ( ƿ )#!xñ6+,Ǭǲơƭ!ƍǷñǮ, ȜĭƢ, 238-250.

Sawada, Naoko and Keiko Murasugi (2011) “A Cross-Linguistic Approach to the ‘Erroneous’
Genitive Subjects: Underspecification of Features in Child Grammar Revisited.” In
Mihaela Pirvulescu et al., eds., Selected Proceedings of the 4th Conference on
Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2010),
Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, Mass., 209-226.
Murasugi, Keiko and Chisato Fuji (2011) “Root Infinitives: The Parallel Routes the Japanese –and Korean – speaking Children Step In.” In William McClure and Marcel den Dillem
eds., Proceedings of the 18th Japanese/Korean Linguistics, CSLI Publications, Stanford,
3-15.
Murasugi, Keiko, Tomomi Nakatani, and Chisato Fuji (2011) “A Trihedral Approach to the--6060 -Overgeneration of no in the Acquisition of Japanese Noun Phrases.” In Ho-min Sohn,
Haruko Minegishi Cook, William O’Grady, Leon Angelo Serafim and Sang Yee Cheoneds., Proceedings of the 19th Japanese/Korean Linguistics, CSLI Publications, Stanford,
527-541.
Murasugi, Keiko (2012) “The Intermediate Stages in the Grammar Acquisition: A View fromJapanese.” In Bjarke Frellesvig, Jieun Kiaer and Janick Wrona eds., Studies in Japaneseand Korean Linguistics, Lincom GmbH, München, 104-119.
Murasugi, Keiko, Tomomi Nakatani, and Chisato Fuji (2012) “Three Types of Overgeneration of
no in the Acquisition of Japanese Noun Phrases,” Nanzan Linguistics 8, 69-87.
ŔĨē}kŗŖġç (2012) ǬǲƊě!ǪƄ
ëkǲëƿ)Ʊ92», °āâë, 1-42.

0ĳ2ƻªǯ!ŨǍ , 8?O\8 ( ĺșŔ ȌwSuzuki, Tatsuya (2009) “On the Structure of the True Hybrid Gerund in Early Modern English: A
Minimalist Approach,” Čħ17-19 čđƨëơƭǻǡªȘ (ØƜơƭC) ơƭħŜÙÃ
ŋƌǬǲƍǷ
2ŏŤĠȼǬǲƍǷǬǲƊě 0!8WglL(ơƭǞǈȼŗŖġç), 239-263.
șŔȌw (2011)Biolinguistics!ƎħĺŵǓǲĸǌ,JACETrȓĶȓƷǥƱ9», 13-26.
șŔȌw (2012) ȳƲëş
2ǓǲǞƌII !ëǆĿŵ!ōȎ­ǓǲĸǌơƭƱ17», ŅƕǓǲĸǌë, 3-11.

, Ņƕï é
Munakata, Takashi (2009) “The Division of C-I and the Nature of the Input, Multiple Transfer
and Phases,” in Kleanthes K. Grohmann, ed., Interphases, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 44-81.
Maki, Hideki, Kana Ito, Megumi Hasebe, Kenichi Goto, Michiyo Hamasaki, Takashi Munakata,and Yukiko Ueda (2009) “The Nominative/Accusative Alternation in the Transitive
Adjective Construction in Modern Japanese: An ANOVA Analysis.” In Yukio Otsu ed.,The Proceedings of the 10th Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, Hituzi Syobo,
Tokyo, 167-191.

ăƑ ƹƍ
Shimada, Junri (2010) “A Linking Morpheme Analysis of Japanese Compound Accentuation.” In-61- 61 -Hiroki Maezawa and Azusa Yokogoshi, eds., Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Altaic
Formal Linguistics (WAFL 6), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 61, 341-355.
Shimada, Junri (2010) “A Scope Theory of Non-presuppositional Noun Phrases.” In Martin
Prinzhorn, Sarah Zobel and Viola Schmitt eds., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14,
405-420.

Ƚ ëàơƭÈȾǙ { ´ ŭÂChaturvedi, Vineet, Tomohiro Fujii, Atsushi Ito, Tomoko Kawamura, and Paroma Sanyal (2008)“Some Preliminary Notes on the WANT-DP Construction in BE-languages,” Nanzan
Linguistics: Special Issue 5, 43-54.
Fujii, Tomohiro (2010) “Split Control and the Principle of Minimal Distance.” In NorbertHornstein and Maria Polinsky eds., Movement Theory of Control, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 211-244.
Fujii, Tomohiro (2012) “On the Calculus of Control and Lack of Overt Agreement Morphology,”
Nanzan Linguistics 8, 1-16.
Fujii, Tomohiro, Kensuke Takita, Barry C.-Y. Yang, and W.-T. Dylan Tsai (to appear)“Comparative Remarks on Wh-adverbials in-situ in Japanese and Chinese.” In Mamoru
Saito ed., Japanese Syntax in Comparative Perspective, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Ăŕ ƦŦ
Kishimoto, Hideki (2008) “Ditransitive Idioms and Argument Structure,” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 17, 141-179.
Kishimoto, Hideki (2008) “On the Variability of Negative Scope in Japanese,” Journal of
Linguistics 44, 379-435.
Kishimoto, Hideki (2008) “Some Lexically-derived Differences in NPI Licensing,” ĘāãȒ(ƿ)f@FDiV=lc] No. 4 , $ŋĩ, 223-237.
Kishimoto, Hideki (2008) “Structural Expansions of Locational Constructions,” {ǧkǤŗƦä (ƿ)#!Ȫ—ǓǲV9ggGlǬǲë, ȜĺƢƇ, 175-197.
Kishimoto, Hideki (2008) “On Verb Raising.” In Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito eds., The
Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, Oxford University Press, New York, 107140.

--6262 -ĂŕƦŦkǔŰŐ (2008)¶Ȇȱ, ơƭƢ.

Kishimoto, Hideki (2009) “Subject-to-subject Raising in the nai-de iru Construction,”ƤĨǬǲëǷ·Ʊ6 », 44-55.
ƒŕȢçkĂŕƦŦ (ƿ) (2009) ǲĕ!ģÅĺŵ, 4Ƈ.

Kishimoto, Hideki (2009) “On the Formation of Lexicalized Negative Adjectives,” ƒŕȢçk
ĂŕƦŦ (ƿ) ǲĕ!ģÅĺŵ, 4 Ƈ, 47-64.
Kishimoto, Hideki (2009) “Subject Raising in Japanese.” In Ryosuke Shibagaki and Reiko
Vermeulen eds., Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL5), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 58, 225-240.
ĂŕƦŦ (2009)XlFMAƎħĺŵ, $ŋĩ.

Kishimoto, Hideki (2009) “Syntactic Status of Idiomatic Subjects in Japanese,” Nanzan
Linguistics 5, 41-60.
ĂŕƦŦ (2009) ǡĺ62¬ǯĖóǯȼDiPgleoł, ĘāãȒ ( ƿ) ŁǓöƆĖóǯk¦ǯ!ģÅţĺƱ5 Ư, âȲ, 152-190.

Kishimoto, Hideki (2009) “Topic Prominency in Japanese,” The Linguistic Review 26, 465-513.
ĂŕƦŦ (2010) ŁǓǲ!sǲ!ţȈǃƆ, 4 Ƈ, 39-52.

ȝ2Ǉõ , ĂŕƦŦ ( ƿ ) #!ö

ĂŕƦŦ (2010) ÁðȃƩ¬Áð!Ɛ× , ©Ǚŷėk¾ŗçk~ƎǄ ( ƿ )ÁðǬǲƍǷ, ȜĭƢ, 27-50.

Kishimoto, Hideki (2010) “Subjects and Constituent Structure in Japanese,” Linguistics: An
Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences 48, 629-670.
Kishimoto, Hideki (2010) “Possessor Raising and Two Types of Honorification,” Nanzan
Linguistics 6, 1-11.
Kishimoto, Hideki (2010) “Locative Alternation and Verb Compounding in Japanese.” In Angella
Ralli, Geert Booij, Sergio Scalise and Athanasios Karasimos eds., Proceedings of 7thMediterranean Morphology Meeting, University of Patras, 38-62.
Kishimoto, Hideki (2011) “Case and Movement in Syntactic V-V Compound Constructions,”
JELS 28: Papers from the 28th Conference of English Linguistic Society of Japan, 54-60.
ĂŕƦŦ (2011)ƴ!ÄȄǥƺȼ_KdN9lȭƝ, ūȋçkǙǠǄ ( ƿ) ƚǰĺ!_KdN9ȼöƆơƭ!ǨƄ 0, $ŋĩ, 115-137.

Kishimoto, Hideki (2011) “Topicalization and Coordination in Japanese.” In Andrew Simpson-63- 63 -ed., Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 7) , MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 62, 171-186.
ĂŕƦŦkĘāãȒ (2011)èÒĪŏ!Ǟƌ, ĘāãȒ ( ƿ)ŁǓöƆ Àǯ!ģÅţĺ, âȲ, 240-269.
ĂŕƦŦ (2011)ÝÛ1ţĺǨƄ!ȁĵ, ĘāãȒkű¨ ( ƿ) ŁrƍǷǬǲë!ľ
þőȸ ƾǲţȈ, 4 Ƈ, 33-57.

Kishimoto, Hideki (2012) “Subject Honorification and the Position of Subjects in Japanese,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 21, 1-41.
ĂŕƦŦ (2012)ŁŕǲDUacĺ!ģÅţȈ, ĘāãȒ (ƿ) ÿĠ¶Ȇ!qƖ, 
4 Ƈ, 39-67.

Kishimoto, Hideki (2012) “The Genesis of the Grammatical Marker nai,” ƤĨǬǲëǷ·Ʊ8 », 1-20.
ĂŕƦŦ (2012)Łŕǲ!ƲƴĢÙţȈ, ȍǙÌȥ ( ƿ) Ƕǰ!?lPBcV9l
ơƭȼsĺƌǺǣĺƌǺ!ƾ½6Ɲİ (Ⱥ), ƤƑàǲâëâëȠ, 195-205.
ĂŕƦŦ (2012)ÝÛ1|Ō, ƂƑųǄ ( ƿ)$ģÅǷǸĒȼƱȹĈ ţĺģÅƱȻƯ, $ŋĩ,177-200.
ĂŕƦŦ (2012)ıµ¬ǯ!ģÅŠ, Ɨāȥy ( ƿ) ŁǓǲ!ţĺơƭ
Ǭǲë!ºǍĠ, ȜĭƢ, 99-111.

0ĳ2ƍǷ

Kishimoto, Hideki (to appear) “Dative/Genitive Subjects in Japanese: A Comparative
Perspective.” In Mamoru Saito ed., Japanese Syntax in Comparative Perspective, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.

® ² t Í 
Kitahara, Hisatsugu (2011) “A Preliminary Study of Argument Ellipsis and Anaphor Binding inJapanese,” Reports of the Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies 42, 245-263.
Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara, and T. Daniel Seely (2011) “Derivations.” In CedricBoeckx, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 291-310.
Kitahara, Hisatsugu (2011) “Relations in Minimalism,” English Linguistics 28, 1-22.
Kitahara, Hisatsugu (2011) “Can Eagles That Fly Swim? Guaranteeing the Simplest Answer to a
New Puzzle.” In Yukio Otsu ed., The Proceedings of 12th Tokyo Conference on
Psycholinguistics, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo, 1-15.

--6464 -Kitahara, Hisatsugu (2012) “External Merge of Internal Argument DP to VP and its Theoretical
Implication,” Reports of the Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies 43, 133139.
Kitahara, Hisatsugu, Samuel Epstein, and Daniel Seely (2012) “Structure Building that Can’t
Be!”. In Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria and Vidal Valmala eds., Ways of Structure Building,
Oxford University Press, New York, 253-270.
Kitahara, Hisatsugu, Samuel Epstein, and Daniel Seely (2012) “Exploring Phase Based
Implications Regarding Clausal Architecture. A Case Study: Why Structural Case
Cannot Precede Theta.” In Ángel Gallego ed., Phases: Developing the Framework,
Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 103-123.

ùŴ ķ
Koizumi, Masatoshi, Naoki Kimura, and Jungho Kim (2008) “Syntactic Positions of Arguments
in Japanese Clause Structures: A Psycholinguistic Perspective.” In Tetsuya Sano, Mika
Endo, Miwa Isobe, Koichi Otaki, Koji Sugisaki and Takeru Suzuki eds., An Enterprise in
the Cognitive Science of Language: A Festschrift for Yukio Otsu, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo,
481-493.
Koizumi, Masatoshi (2008) “Toward a Cognitive Neuroscience of Language,” Journal of
Language Sciences 15, 239-266.
Koizumi, Masatoshi (2008) “Nominative Object.” In Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito eds.,
The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, Oxford University Press, New York,141-164.
Koizumi, Masatoshi (2009) “Cognitive Neuroscience of Scrambling.” In Hiroto Hoshi ed., The
Dynamics of the Language Faculty: Perspectives from Linguistics and Cognitive
Neuroscience, Kuroshio Publishers, Tokyo, 231-251.
Kim, Jungho, Masatoshi Koizumi, Naho Ikuta, Yuichiro Fukumitsu, Naoki Kimura, Kazuki
Iwata, Jobu Watanabe, Satoru Yokoyama, Shigeru Sato, Kaoru Horie, and Ryuta
Kawashima (2009) “Scrambling Effects on the Processing of Japanese Sentences: An
fMRI Study,” Journal of Neurolinguistics 22, 151-166.
ùŴķ(2009)ŁŕǲyȖƝƛǲ¬ǯ!ŢĞţȈƾǲţȈ, ƒŕȢçkĂŕƦŦ(ƿ)
ǲĕ!ģÅĺŵ, 4 Ƈ, 285-305.

ùŴķ

(2010)Ǭǲ, ŗoȑw (ƿ):cHPfAL`l ǱƟƤƼƨë, >l]Ƣ,89-106.

Utsugi, Akira, Masatoshi Koizumi, and Reiko Mazuka (2010) “A Robust Method to Detect-65- 65 -Dialectal Differences in the Perception of Lexical Pitch Accent,” Proceedings of 20th
International Congress on Acoustics, 1-8.
Koizumi, Masatoshi and Katsuo Tamaoka (2010) “Psycholinguistic Evidence for the VP-internal
Subject Position in Japanese,” Linguistic Inquiry 41, 663-680.
ùŴķ(2010) ĺ!Əƍǫ , ȉŇ ( ƿ ) ǬǲÉëkĜƍë , ŒŋĐ ,219-248.

Takahashi, Junichi, Yuika Suzuki, Hiroshi Shibata, Yuichiro Fukumitsu, Jiro Gyoba, Hiroko
Hagiwara, and Masatoshi Koizumi (2011) “Effects of Non-native Language Exposure on
the Semantic Processing of Native Language in Preschool Children,” Neuroscience
Research 69, 246-251.
Yusa, Noriaki, Masatoshi Koizumi, Jungho Kim, Naoki Kimura, Shinya Uchida, Satoru
Yokoyama, Naoki Miura, Ryuta Kawashima, and Hiroko Hagiwara (2011) “Secondlanguage Instinct and Instruction Effects: Nature and Nurture in Second-language
Acquisition,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23, 2716-2730.
ìƉkùŴķ
(2011)¦ǯsǲ!ǲȬ 0ǦrÐǲƴćĿÄǀȓ!ȣĀţȈ, ĘāãȒkű¨ ( ƿ)ŁrƍǷǬǲë!ľþőȸ ƾǲţȈ, 4 Ƈ, 85-107.

Imamura, Satoshi, and Masatoshi Koizumi (2011) “A Centering Analysis of Word Order inJapanese,” Tohoku Studies in Linguistics 20, 59-74.
Koizumi, Masatoshi, Jungho Kim, Naoki Kimura, Satoru Yokoyama, Shigeru Sato, Kaoru Horie,
and Ryuta Kawashima (2012) “Left Inferior Frontal Activations Differentially
Modulated by Scrambling in Ditransitive Sentences,” The Open Medical Imaging
Journal 6, 70-79.
Inubushi, Tomoo, Kazuki Iijima, Masatoshi Koizumi, and Kuniyoshi Sakai (2012) “Left Inferior
Frontal Activations Depending on the Canonicity Determined by the Argument
Structures of Ditransitive Sentences: An MEG Study,” PloS ONE 7, PLOS, e37192.

Martin, Roger
Martin, Roger and Juan Uriagereka (2008) “Competence for Preferences.” In Xabier Artiagoitia
and Joseba Lakarra eds., Festschrift for Patxi Goenaga, University of the BasqueCountry Press.

òŕ Ȣm
Miyamoto, Yoichi (2008) “On the Theme/Non-theme Contrast in Japanese Comparative
Deletion,” âȞâëâëȠǬǲĺ­ơƭƨ¿ơƭWgG<AP 2007 ǐƅǬǲ--6666 -(!ƍǷƛ8WglL, 49-56.

Miyamoto, Yoichi (2008) “Review: Nomi Erteschik-Shir 2007, Information Structure: The
Syntax-Discourse Interface,” Studies in English Literature 85, 233-244.
Miyamoto, Yoichi (2008) “A Derivational Approach to Scope Interaction between Wh-phrases
and Quantifiers,” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 53, 219-236.
Miyamoto, Yoichi (2009) “A Subject/Object Asymmetry with Floating Quantifiers in Japanese.”
In Sergei Tatevosov ed., Investigations into Formal Altaic Linguistics: Proceedings ofthe Workshop on Altaic in Formal Linguistics 3 (WAFL 3), MAKS Press, Moscow, 234248.
Miyamoto, Yoichi (2009) “A Speculative Note on the Structure of Half-Relatives,” âȞâëâëȠǬǲĺ­ơƭƨ¿ơƭWgG<AP 2008 ǐƅǬǲ(!ƍǷƛ8Wgl
L, 1-8.
Miyamoto, Yoichi (2009) “On the Nominal-Internal Distributive Interpretation in Japanese,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 18, 233-251.
Miyamoto, Yoichi (2010) “On Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-Ellipsis,” Nanzan
Linguistics 6, 13-46.
Miyamoto, Yoichi and Pei-Tsuen Wang (2010) “A Note on Scope Rigidity in Chinese,” Ǭǲĺ­¿ơƭWgG<AP2009 ǐƅǬǲ(!ƍǷƛ8WglL, âȞâëǬǲĺ
­ơƭƨ, 77-88.
Yamada, Kazumi and Yoichi Miyamoto (2010) “The Influence of Contexts on Acquisition of“How Many” and Its Implication for English Education: the Case of Japanese Child
Learners,” The 2nd Asian Conference on Education Official Proceedings, 260-271.
Yamada, Kazumi and Yoichi Miyamoto (2011) “The Acquisition of English Articles by Japanese
Adult and Child EFL Learners,” Kwansei Gakuin University Humanities Review 15,
103-117.
Miyamoto, Yoichi (2012) “On Transparent Adjuncts in Japanese.” In Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria
and Vidal Valmala eds., Ways of Structure Building, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
330-365.
Miyamoto, Yoichi (2012) “A Note on Scope Interaction within Japanese Clausal Adjuncts,” Ǭǲĺ­¿ơƭWgG<AP 2011 ǐƅǬǲ(!ƍǷƛ8WglL, âȞâëǬ
ǲĺ­ơƭƨ, 69-78.
òŕȢm (2012)How Many !ƙÊĺǆě ȝ2mǇõ, ǙƑǉ¼kŚŕ[H\kƋmîkǹ¸mǄ (ƿ) ōľǬǲƍǷ6Ǔǲĸǌ ŹƐ2, ȜĭƢ, 221-232.

-67- 67 -Miyamoto, Yoichi (2012) “On the Event Argument and Anti-Quantifier Zutsu in Japanese,”
Nanzan Linguistics 8, 47-68.
Miyamoto, Yoichi (to appear) “On Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-Ellipsis.” In
Mamoru Saito ed., Japanese Syntax in Comparative Perspective, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.

ȗŗ Ń¼
Nomura, Masashi (2008) “Unaccusativity, Restructuring Infinitives, and Japanese V-te arConstructions.” In Cedric Boeckx and Suleyman Ulutas eds., Proceedings of the 4thWorkshop on Altaic in Formal Linguistics (WAFL 4), MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics 56, 229-240.
Nomura, Masashi (2008) “Two Types of Complement Clauses in Japanese V-te arConstructions.” In Jong Yuri Yoon and Kyoung Ae Kim eds., The Perspectives ofLinguistics in the 21st Century: The Linguistic Society of Korea, Hankook Munhwasa,
Seoul, 207-218.
Nomura, Masashi and Yuka Makita (2012) “Defectiveness, cliticization, and long-distancereflexives in Icelandic,” in Online proceedings of GLOW in Asia IX. http://faculty.
human.mie-u.ac.jp/~glow_mie/proceedings_IX.html

ȀŊ ŪƔOchi, Masao (2008) “Overt Object Movement and the Double-o Constraint in Japanese,” Ǭǲĺ­¿ơƭWgG<AP2007 ǐƅǬǲ(!ƍǷƛ8WglL, âȞâëǬǲĺ
­ơƭƨ, 11-20.
Ochi, Masao (2009) “Feature Splitting upon Internal/External Merge,” Ǭǲĺ­¿ơƭWg
G<AP 2008 ǐƅǬǲ(!ƍǷƛ8WglL, âȞâëǬǲĺ­ơƭƨ, 9-18.
Ochi, Masao (2009) “Overt Object Shift in Japanese,” Syntax 12, 324-362.
Ochi, Masao (2010) “Numeral Classifier and Noun Phrase Structure in Japanese,” Ǭǲĺ­¿ơƭWgG<AP 2009 ǐƅǬǲ(!ƍǷƛ8WglL, âȞâëǬǲĺ­ơƭƨ, 21-32.
Ochi, Masao (2011) “Some Asymmetries in Adnominal Quantification in Japanese,” Ǭǲĺ­¿ơƭWgG<AP 2010 ǐƅǬǲ(!ƍǷƛ8WglL, âȞâëǬǲĺ­ơƭƨ, 31-40.
Ochi, Masao (2011) “Multiple Wh-questions and Left Periphery,” Nanzan Linguistics 7, 23-42.

--6868 -Ochi, Masao (2012) “Numeral Classifiers, Plural/Collective Elements, and Nominal Ellipsis,”
Nanzan Linguistics 8, 89–108.
Ochi, Masao (2012) “Remarks on Universal Numeric Quantifiers in Japanese,”Ǭǲĺ­¿ơƭWgG<AP2011 ǐƅǬǲ(!ƍǷƛ8WglL, âȞâëǬǲĺ­ơƭƨ, 21–30.
Ochi, Masao (2012) “Universal Numeric Quantifiers in Japanese,” Iberia: An International
Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 4.2 (Special Issue in Honor of Andrew Radford), 40–
77.

ŖĄ Ț¼
Sugisaki, Koji (2008) “Swiping in Child English.” In Kevin Ryan ed., Proceedings of the 27th
West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics Poster Session, UCLA Working Papers in
Linguistics, 71-77.
Sugisaki, Koji (2008) “Early Acquisition of Basic Word Order in Japanese,” Language
Acquisition 15, 183-191.
Sugisaki, Koji (2008) “Evaluating Syntactic Analyses with Children,” Poetica 70, 21-37.
Sugisaki, Koji (2008) “The Acquisition of Preposition Stranding and its Theoretical
Implications.” In Yukio Otsu ed., Proceedings of the 9th Tokyo Conference on
Psycholinguistics, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo, 27-55.
Murasugi, Keiko, and Koji Sugisaki (2008) “The Acquisition of Japanese Syntax.” In Shigeru
Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito eds., The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics,
Oxford University Press, New York, 250-286.
Sugisaki, Koji (2009) “The Acquisition of Argument Ellipsis in Japanese: A Preliminary Study,”
Nanzan Linguistics 5, 61-73.
Sugisaki, Koji (2009) “Nominative-Genitive Conversion and its Transitivity Restriction in ChildJapanese.” In Jean Crawford, Koichi Otaki and Masahiko Takahashi eds., Proceedings ofthe 3rd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America(GALANA 2008), Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, Mass., 262-269.
Sugisaki, Koji (2009) “Argument Ellipsis in Child Japanese: A Preliminary Report.” In Yukio
Otsu ed., The Proceedings of the 10th Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, Hituzi
Syobo, Tokyo, 291-312.
Sugisaki, Koji (2009) “On Children's NEEDs.” In Rajat Mohanty and Mythili Menon eds.,
Proceedings of the 7th GLOW in Asia, EFL University Press, Hyderabad, 225-236.

-69- 69 -ŖĄȚ¼ (2009)ǬǲƊě!^?QI]6ĳ2, âŸƒƷȥ ( ƿ)",ë'Ǭǲë#!qƖ6217 Ư, \Rej7ŋĩ, 133-152.

Sugisaki, Koji, and William Snyder (2010) “Fragments in Child English and Spanish.” In Yukio
Otsu ed., The Proceedings of the 11th Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, Hituzi
Syobo, Tokyo, 253-268.
Sugisaki, Koji (2010) “A Note on the Structure of Relative Clauses in Child Japanese.” In Hiroki
Maezawa and Azusa Yokogoshi eds., Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Altaic Formal
Linguistics (WAFL 6), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 61, 49-57.
ŖĄȚ¼ (2010)ŬǲƊě, ȉŇ ( ƿ)ǬǲÉëkĜƍëƱ7 Ư, ŒŋĐ, 172192.

Sugisaki, Koji (2011) “The Distribution between Case Markers and Postpositions in Early ChildJapanese: New Evidence for Children’s Grammatical Conservatism.” In Nick Danis,
Kate Mesh and Hyunsuk Sung eds., Online Proceedings Supplement of Boston
University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 35.
Sugisaki, Koji (2011) “Constraint on Argument Ellipsis in Child Japanese,” Nanzan Linguistics 7,
63-76.
Sugisaki, Koji and Yukio Otsu (2011) “Universal Grammar and the Acquisition of Japanese
Syntax.” In Jill de Villiers and Tom Roeper eds., Handbook of Generative Approaches toLanguage Acquisition, Springer, Dordrecht, 291-317.
Sugisaki, Koji (2011) “Children’s Grammatical Conservatism: Evidence from the Acquisition ofCase Markers and Postpositions in Japanese.” In Yukio Otsu ed., The Proceedings of the
12th Tokyo Conference on Pyscholinguisitics, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo, 249-260.
Sugisaki, Koji (2011) “ Configuration Structure in Child Japanese: New Evidence.” In Mihaela
Pirvulescu et al., eds., Selected Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Generative
Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2010), Cascadilla
Proceedings Project, Somerville, Mass., 241-248.
Sugisaki, Koji (2012) “LF Wh-movement and its Locality Constraints in Child Japanese,”
Language Acquisition 19, 174-181.

ȳŧ â±
Takahashi, Daiko (2008) “Scope Interaction in DPs with NP-Deletion in Japanese.” In Yoshiaki
Kaneko, Akira Kikuchi, Daiko Takahashi, Yoshiki Ogawa and Etsuro Shima eds., The
State of the Art in Linguistics Research: The Interface of Form and Meaning,
Kaitakusha, Tokyo, 115-133.

--7070 -Takahashi, Daiko (2008) “Noun Phrase Ellipsis.” In Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito eds.,
The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, Oxford University Press, New York,394-423.
Takahashi, Daiko (2008) “Quantificational Null Objects and Argument Ellipsis,” Linguistic
Inquiry 39, 307-326.
Kaneko, Yoshiaki, Akira Kikuchi, Daiko Takahashi, Yoshiki Ogawa and Etsuro Shima eds.
(2008) The State of the Art in Linguistic Research: The Interface of Form and Meaning,
Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
Takahashi, Daiko (2009) “A Note on Ellipsis of Quantificational Objects in Japanese.” In Hiroto
Hoshi ed., The Dynamics of the Language Faculty: Perspectives from Linguistics andCognitive Neuroscience, Kurosio Publishers, Tokyo, 163-175.
ener, Serkan and Daiko Takahashi (2010) “Argument Ellipsis in Japanese and Turkish.” In
Hiroki Maezawa and Azusa Yokogoshi eds., Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Altaic
Formal Linguistics (WAFL 6), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 61, 325-339.
ener, Serkan and Daiko Takahashi (2010) “Ellipsis of Arguments in Japanese and Turkish,”Nanzan Linguistics 6, 79-99.
Kimura, Hiroko and Daiko Takahashi (2012) “NPI and Predicative Remnants in Sluicing.” In Homin Sohn, Haruko Minegishi Cook and William O’Grady eds., Proceedings of the 19th
Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference, CSLI Publications, Stanford, 141-154.
Takahashi, Daiko and Sichao Lin (2012) “Two Notes on Multiple Sluicing in Chinese andJapanese,” Nanzan Linguistics 8, 129-145.
Takahashi, Daiko (to appear) “Argument Ellipsis, Anti-agreement, and Scrambling.” In Mamoru
Saito ed., Japanese Syntax in Comparative Perspective, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.

ȳȗ ƣy
Takano, Yuji (2008) “Ditransitive Construction.” In Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito eds.,
The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, Oxford University Press, New York,423-455.
Takano, Yuji (2009) “Scrambling and the Nature of Movement,” Nanzan Linguistics 5, 75-104.
Takano, Yuji (2009) “Scrambling, Control, and Phases,” ȘÖëȠâëǷȦ }ĺƨëƿƱ
5Ĉ, 78-110.
Takano, Yuji (2010) “Scrambling and Control,” Linguistic Inquiry 41, 83-110.

-71- 71 -Takano, Yuji (2011) “Double Complement Unaccusatives in Japanese: Puzzles and
Implications,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 20, 229-254.
Takano, Yuji (2012) “Multiple Clefting and a Movement Approach to Binding,” ȍǙÌȥ (ƿ)
Ƕǰ!?lPBcV9lơƭȼsĺƌǺǣĺƌǺ!ƾ½6Ɲİ(Ⱥ), ƤƑàǲâëâëȠ, 155-168.
Takano, Yuji (to appear) “A Comparative Approach to Japanese Postposing.” In Mamoru Saitoed., Japanese Syntax in Comparative Perspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

ƃƑ 
Takita, Kensuke (2011) “Argument Ellipsis in Japanese Right Dislocation.” In William McClureand Marcel den Dikken eds., Proceedings of the 18th Japanese/Korean Linguistics,
CSLI Publications, Stanford, 380-391.
Takita, Kensuke (2011) “On (Pseudo-)Right Dislocation in Japanese,” Online Proceedings of
GLOW in Asia Workshop for Young Scholars.
Takita, Kensuke (2011) “An Argument for Argument Ellipsis from -Sika NPIs,” Proceedings ofthe 39th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 39), GLSA,
Amherst, Mass.
ƃƑ (2012) “Voice Mismatches under Sluicing in English and Japanese,” ŁŕǓĺëƱ
84ÏâProceedings, 159-160.

Takita, Kensuke (2012) “Pseudo-right Dislocation and the Bare-topic Construction in Japanese,”
Nanzan Linguistics 8, 147-171.
Takita, Kensuke and Barry C.-Y. Yang (to appear) “On Multiple Wh-questions with ‘Why’ inJapanese and Chinese.” In Mamoru Saito ed., Japanese Syntax in Comparative
Perspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Fujii, Tomohiro, Kensuke Takita, Barry C.-Y. Yang, and W.-T. Dylan Tsai (to appear)“Comparative Remarks on Wh-adverbials in-situ in Japanese and Chinese.” In Mamoru
Saito ed., Japanese Syntax in Comparative Perspective, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.

ż ËuUra, Hiroyuki (2009) “Verbal Nouns in Japanese and Agree in Syntactic Word Formation,” ƒŕȢçkĂŕƦŦ ( ƿ)ǲĕ!ģÅĺŵ, 4 Ƈ, 233-252.
Asano, Sin'ya and Hiroyuki Ura (2010) “Mood and Case: With Special Reference to Genitive--7272 -Case Conversion in Kansai Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19, 37-59.
Ishino, Nao and Hiroyuki Ura (2010) “Feature Transfer in L2 Acquisition: With Special
Reference to Reflexive Binding.” In Yukio Otsu ed., The Proceedings of the 11th Tokyo
Conference on Psycholinguistics, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo, 141-160.
Ura, Hiroyuki (2010) “Some Notes on the Impersonal Construction in Japanese,” ǓƶĺëƱ55 Ĉ, ȝǤëȠǓƶĺë, 310-342.
Ishino, Nao and Hiroyuki Ura (2012) “Towards a Theory of Split Binding: A Preliminary
Sketch,” Nanzan Linguistics 8, 17-45.
Ura, Hiroyuki (to appear) “Dative Subjects and Impersonals in Null-subject Languages.” In
Mamoru Saito ed., Japanese Syntax in Comparative Perspective, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.

Ƚ âëȠƎkơƎȾÞ ¯ȕFuji, Chisato, Tomoko Hashimoto, and Keiko Murasugi (2008) “Theoretical Account for theUndergeneration and the Overgeneration in Japanese Complex Predicates.” In Harvey
Chan, Enkeleida Kapia and Heather Jacob eds., Online Proceedings Supplement of
Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 32.
Fuji, Chisato, Tomoko Hashimoto, and Keiko Murasugi (2008) “A VP-shell Analysis for theUndergeneration and the Overgeneration in the Acquisition of Japanese Causatives andPotentials,” Nanzan Linguistics 4, 21-41.
Murasugi, Keiko and Chisato Fuji (2009) “Root Infinitives in Japanese and the Late Acquisitionof Head-movement.” In Jane Chandlee, Michelle Franchini, Sandy Lord and Marion
Rheiner eds., Online Proceedings Supplement of Boston University Conference on
Language Development (BUCLD) 33.
Sawada, Naoko, Keiko Murasugi, and Chisato Fuji (2010) “A Theoretical Account for the‘Erroneous’ Subjects in Child Japanese and the Specification of Tense.” In Katie
Franich, Kate Mesh Iserman and Lauren Keil eds., Online Proceedings Supplement of
Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 34.
Murasugi, Keiko, Chisato Fuji, and Tomoko Hashimoto, and (2010) “What’s Acquired Later inan Agglutinative Langauage,” Nanzan Linguistics 6, 47-78.
Murasugi, Keiko, Tomomi Nakatani, and Chisato Fuji (2010) “The Roots of Root Infinitive
Analogues: The Surrogate Verb Forms Common in Adult and Child Grammar.” In Katie
Franich, Kate Mesh Iserman and Lauren Keil eds., Online Proceedings Supplement of-73- 73 -Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 34.

ŧŕ Ɵç
Fuji, Chisato, Tomoko Hashimoto, and Keiko Murasugi (2008) “Theoretical Account for theUndergeneration and the Overgeneration in Japanese Complex Predicates.” In Harvey
Chan, Enkeleida Kapia and Heather Jacob eds., Online Proceedings Supplement of
Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 32.
Fuji, Chisato, Tomoko Hashimoto, and Keiko Murasugi (2008) “A VP-shell Analysis for theUndergeneration and the Overgeneration in the Acquisition of Japanese Causatives andPotentials,” Nanzan Linguistics 4, 21-41.
Murasugi, Keiko, Chisato Fuji, and Tomoko Hashimoto, and (2010) “What’s Acquired Later inan Agglutinative Langauage,” Nanzan Linguistics 6, 47-78.

²¸ Ŋç
Akaso, Naoyuki and Tomoko Haraguchi (2011) “On the Categorial Status of Japanese Relative
Clauses,” English Linguistics 28, 91-119.
Haraguchi, Tomoko and Yuji Shuhama (2011) “On the Cartography of Modality in Japanese,”
Online Proceedings of GLOW in Asia Workshop for Young Scholars.
Saito, Mamoru and Tomoko Haraguchi (2012) “Deriving the Cartography of the Japanese Right
Periphery: The Case of Sentence-Final Particles,” Iberia: An International Journal of
Theoretical Linguistics 4.2 (Special Issue in Honor of AndrewRadford), 104-123.

Ǚ Ĺ¼
Ito, Atsushi (2008) “NP Movement into Theta-positions and Unexpected Behavior of Numeral
Quantifier Stranding,” Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5, 79-93.
Chaturvedi, Vineet, Tomohiro Fujii, Atsushi Ito, Tomoko Kawamura, and Paroma Sanyal (2008)“Some Preliminary Notes on the WANT-DP Construction in BE-languages,” Nanzan
Linguistics: Special Issue 5, 43-54.

rǹ ´Ǆ
Dejima, Mayumi, Tomomi Nakatani, and Keiko Murasugi (2009) “The Emergence of Speech Act
Phrase: Evidence from a Longitudinal Study of Two Japanese-Speaking Infants,”
Nanzan Linguistics 5, 17-39.

--7474 -Murasugi, Keiko and Tomomi Nakatani-Murai (2009) “The Ontology of Functional Categories.”
In Nguyen Chi Duy Khuong, Richa and Samar Sinha eds., The 5th Asian GLOW:
Conference Proceedings, Central Institute of Indian Language, Mysore, 152-165.
rǹ´ǄkŗŖġç (2009)ǬǲƊě
2sƴpðǯƌǺȼǂļƛǪõƛơƭ,8?O\8 (ĺëkǲëƿ)Ʊ86 », °āâë, 59-94.

Murasugi, Keiko, Tomomi Nakatani, and Chisato Fuji (2010) “The Roots of Root Infinitive
Analogues: The Surrogate Verb Forms Common in Adult and Child Grammar.” In Katie
Franich, Kate Mesh Iserman and Lauren Keil eds., Online Proceedings Supplement of
Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 34.
rǹ´ǄkŗŖġç (2010) ǬǲƊě
2sƴpðǯßƬ!Ǣ¬ǯȼǂļƛǪõƛơƭ,8?O\8 ( ĺëkǲëƿ)Ʊ87 », °āâë, 13-60.

ƂƑ úç
Sawada, Naoko, Keiko Murasugi and Chisato Fuji (2010) “A Theoretical Account for the‘Erroneous’ Subjects in Child Japanese and the Specification of Tense.” In Katie
Franich, Kate Mesh Iserman and Lauren Keil eds., Online Proceedings Supplement of
Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 34.

ư ǋ
Takeuchi, Hajime (2010) “Exceptional Case Marking in Japanese and Optional Feature
Transmission,” Nanzan Linguistics 6, 101-128.

ƃƑ 
Takita, Kensuke (2008) “String-Vacuous Scrambling and Cyclic Linearization.” In Yukio Otsued., The Proceedings of the 9th Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, Hituzi Syobo,
Tokyo, 225-249.
Takita, Kensuke (2008) “Order in Narrow Syntax and PF: Toward a Theory of Word Order
Variations.” In Tetsuya Sano, Mika Endo, Miwa Isobe, Koichi Otaki, Koji Sugisaki andTakeru Suzuki eds., An Enterprise in the Cognitive Science of Language: A Festschrift
for Yukio Otsu, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo, 243-256.
Takita, Kensuke (2008) “An Argument for the Derivational Reformulation of the Proper Binding
Condition.” In Cedric Boeckx and Suleyman Ultus eds., Proceedings of the 4thWorkshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 4), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics,
291-302.

-75- 75 -Saito, Mamoru and Kensuke Takita (2009) “On the Variety of Movements to the vP Edge,” ƒŕȢçkĂŕƦŦ ( ƿ)ǲĕ!ģÅĺŵ, 4 Ƈ, 307-329.
Takita, Kensuke (2009) “If Chinese is Head-initial, Japanese cannot be,” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 18, 41-61.
Takita, Kensuke (2009) “The Proper Binding Effect as a Consequence of Cyclic Linearization,”
Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 38),
427-440.

oƑ Čí
Ueda, Yasuki (2009) “Number in Japanese and Chinese,” Nanzan Linguistics 5, 105-130.
Ueda, Yasuki (to appear) “Number and Classifier.” In Mamoru Saito ed., Japanese Syntax in
Comparative Perspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

ſB. ë ƚǞkĮĚǸſȽ ëơƭÈȾĻǙ ǝ
Saito, Mamoru (2008) “Argument Ellipsis, Radical Pro-drop, and (the Absence of) Agreement,”
Syntax Workshop, Yokohama National University, Yokohama, Japan. (May 17)
Saito, Mamoru (2008) “Semantic and Discourse Effects of Scrambling” (Keynote Lecture), the
7th Pan-Asiatic International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics, Guangdong
University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou, China. (December 5)
Saito, Mamoru (2008) “New Perspectives on Old Problems in Japanese Syntax: Evidence for
Covert Phrasal Movement” (Colloquium), The Chinese University of Hong Kong, HongKong. (December 8)
Saito, Mamoru (2009) “On the Scope Properties of Japanese Nominative Phrases” (Invited Talk),
GLOW in Asia 7, EFL University, Hyderabad, India. (February 27)
Saito, Mamoru (2009) “Selection and Clause Types in Japanese,” International Conference on
Sentence Types: Ten Years After, Universität Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany.
(June 27)
Saito, Mamoru and Duk-Ho An (2009) “A Comparative Syntax of Ellipsis in Japanese andKorean” (Invited Talk), the 6th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics, Nagoya--7676 -University, Nagoya, Japan. (September 6)
Saito, Mamoru (2010) “On the Architecture of Japanese CPs” (Colloquium), University ofConnecticut, Storrs, U.S.A. (March 23)
Saito, Mamoru (2010) “On the Architecture of Japanese CPs” (Invited Talk), the 5th Formal
Approaches to Japanese Linguistics Conference, University of California, Santa Cruz,
U.S.A. (May 8)
ĻǙǝ (2011)ŁŕǲÕ,ȅ+ĺ!ģÅƛkǶǰƛĠǼŭȂƾǲǷ(!ĮĚ, ŸƑÜâëǬǲĺ­ơƭĪǓǲ!ňƛkȇňƛơƭ!25 ÄčǭĞâ, ŸƑÜâë .
(8Ŏ28Ł)Saito, Mamoru (2011) “Case Checking/Valuation in Japanese: Move, Agree, or Merge?”(Invited), GLOW in Asia Workshop for Young Scholars, Mie University, Tsu, Japan.
(September 7)
ĻǙǝ (2011)ŁŕǲÕ,ȅ+ĺ!ȯÔţȈŭȂƾǲǷ!ǦÓ
ěë2011 čƧ!ơ, ÀÖâë. (10Ŏ23Ł)0, ŁŕƱyǬǲǆ

Saito, Mamoru (2012) “The Japanese Right Periphery: Preliminary Results and New Issues,”
National Tsing Hua University Consortium Workshop 2012, National Tsing Hua
University, Taiwan. (March 5)
Saito, Mamoru (2012) “Case Valuation without Agree,” 2nd York East Asian Syntax Forum(University of York, Nanzan University, University of Kobe), University of York.
(August 21)
Saito, Mamoru (2012) “Cartography and Selection: Case Studies in Japanese,” Syntactic
Cartography: Where do we go from here?, Université de Genèva, Switzerland. (June 9)
Saito, Mamoru (2012) “Deriving the Cartography of the Japanese Right Periphery,” The 2nd York
East Asian Syntax Forum, University of York, England. (August 23)
Saito, Mamoru (2012) “Kuroda’s Agreement Parameter Revisited” (Invited Talk), Formal
Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 6, Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft(ZAS) and Humboldt Universität, Berlin. (September 26)

Ȩŝ î
Aoyagi, Hiroshi and Sachiko Kato (2008) “On Information Packaging of Topicalized andScrambled Sentences in Japanese,” the 18th International Congress of Linguists, Korea
University, Seoul, South Korea. (July 22)
Aoyagi, Hiroshi (2009) “On the Left-edge Puzzle: How Do Syntax and Phonology Interact with

-77- 77 -Semantics and Information Structure?,” ř®âëâëȠĺëơƭƨȜFiZG;]
ƾǲţȈĺǎǬǲǱƟǏƨë!ºǍĠ, ř®âë. (6Ŏ13Ł)Aoyagi, Hiroshi (2009) “On the Source of Asymmetries in Passives between Japanese andKorean,” the 11th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar, Hankuk
University of Foreign Studies, Seoul, South Korea. (August 11)
Aoyagi, Hiroshi (2009) “On the Asymmetries in Passives between Japanese and Korean” (InvitedTalk), ŁŕǓǲëƱ27Ïâ, âȞâë. (11Ŏ15Ł)ŗŖ ġçŗ Ŗ ġ ç (2008)  ö Ɔ Ǭ ǲ Ɗ ě ơ ƭ 0 + 2 Ł ŕ ǲ  ( Ø ǵ Ǹ ſ ), the 10th Annual
International Conference of the Japanese Society for Language Sciences, University of
Shizuoka, Shizuoka, Japan. (June 12)ŗŖġç (2008)ǭȆ 0ǬǲƊěƍǷ((ClHHJO9), Ʊ20 ÏnȖâëǬǲëDg
@8], nȖâë.(6Ŏ27 Ł)

Murasugi, Keiko and Eriko Watanabe (2008) “Case Errors in Child Japanese and the Implication
for the Syntactic Theory,” Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North
America 3, University of Connecticut, Storrs, U.S.A. (September 6)
Murasugi, Keiko and Chisato Fuji (2008) “Root Infinitives in Japanese and the Late Acquisitionof Head-Movement,” Boston University Conference on Language Development 33,
Boston University, Boston, U.S.A. (November 1)
Murasugi, Keiko and Chisato Fuji (2008) “Root Infinitives: The Parallel Routes the Japanese-and
Korean-speaking Children Step In,” the 18th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference,
City University of New York, New York, U.S.A. (November 13)
Murasugi, Keiko and Chisato Fuji (2009) “What Japanese-speaking Children’s Errors Tell Us
about Syntax,” Workshop on Theoretical Understanding of Language Acquisition,
GLOW in Asia 7, The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad, India.
(February 28)
Murasugi, Keiko (2009) “The Onset of Complex NPs in Child Production,” the 6th Workshop on
Altaic Formal Linguistics, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan. (September 5)
Murasugi, Keiko, Tomomi Nakatani, and Chisato Fuji (2009) “The Roots of Root Infinitive
Analogues: The Surrogate Verb Forms Common in Adult and Child Grammars,” Boston
University Conference on Language Development 34, Boston University, Boston, U.S.A.
(November 7)
Sawada, Naoko, Keiko Murasugi, and Chisato Fuji (2009) “A Theoretical Account for the--7878 -‘Erroneous’ Subjects in Child Japanese and the Specification of Tense,” Boston
University Conference on Language Development 34, Boston University, Boston, U.S.A.
(November 7)
Murasugi, Keiko, Tomomi Nakatani, and Chisato Fuji (2009) “A Trihedral Approach to theOvergeneration of no in the Acquisition of Japanese noun phrases,” the 19th
Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference, University of Hawai’i at Mãnoa, U.S.A.
(November 12)
Murasugi, Keiko (2010) “The Linguistic Constellations: Relating Acquisition Phenomena withParameter Setting” ( Į ǊǸ ſ ), GLOW in Asia 8, Beijing Language and Culture
University, Beijing, China. (August 14)
Murasugi, Keiko (2010) “Language Acquisition as a Window on Universal Grammar,” Ʊ14ÏǬǲkǏkǱƟȜǸĒ, ř®âë. (8 Ŏ23 Ł)
Sawada, Naoko and Keiko Murasugi (2010) “A Cross-Linguistic Approach to the ‘Erroneous’
Genitive: Underspecification of Tense in Child Grammar Revisited,” Generative
Approaches to Language Acquisition North America 4, University of Toronto, Toronto,
Canada. (September 1)
Murasugi, Keiko and Tomomi Nakatani (2010) “Three Types of ‘Root Infinitives’: Theoretical
Implications from Child Japanese,” the 20th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference,
University of Oxford, Oxford, England. (October 1)
Murasugi, Keiko (2011) “Child Japanese as a Window into Linguistic Variation” (ĮǊǸſ), ǓÐŁŕơƭë, BAJS. (9Ŏ8 Ł)ŗ Ŗ ġ ç (2012) “Children’s‘Erroneous’Intransitives, Transitives, and Causatives and the
Implications for Syntactic Theory, ÐƮÐǲơƭĪÐȤFiZG;], ÐƮÐǲơƭ
Ī. (8 Ŏ4Ł)

Murasugi, Keiko (2012) “The Acquisition of Japanese Syntax and Universal Grammar”(Lecture), the 2nd York East Asian Syntax Forum, University of York, England. (August20)
Murasugi, Keiko (2012) “Pragmatic Bootstrapping,” the 2nd York East Asian Syntax Forum,
University of York, England. (August 23)ŗŖġç (2012) -!ǳƐ"Ǝ2!
-ď!ǬǲƊě
2ŉȊĺŵ
!ę§-(ĮĚǸſ), âFiZG;]ĺŵ"!/Ǝ*3kǌ! , ŁŕǲĺŵëƱ13 Ïâ, À¹ýâë. (10 Ŏ27 Ł)-79- 79 -Ƚ ëàơƭÈȾǙ { ´ ŭÂFujii, Tomohiro (2009) “Deriving the Ban on First Merge of Thematic NPs in Non-theta
Positions,” Workshop “Minimalist Theories of Control,” Ʊ2ÏŁŕǓǲëÐȤņêV=lc], åǑæçâë. (4 Ŏ26Ł)Fujii, Tomohiro, and Yu Masuda (2012) “On Some Asymmetries between Head-external
Relatives and Clefts in Japanese,” the One-day Workshop on Syntax and Semantics, Fuji
Women’s Univeristy, Sapporo, Japan. (September 8)Ăŕ ƦŦ
Kishimoto, Hideki (2008) “Subject-Raising in Japanese,” the 5th Workshop on Altaic Formal
Linguistics, School of Oriental and Asian Studies, University of London, London,
England. (May 24)
Kishimoto, Hideki (2008) “Argument Structures of Ditransitive Verbs in Japanese,” 18th
International Congress of Linguists, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea. (July 21)
Kishimoto, Hideki (2009) “Locative Alternation and Verb Compounding in Japanese,” 7th
Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, University of Cyprus, Cyprus. (September 12)
Kishimoto, Hideki (2010) “Topicalization and Hierarchical Information Structure in Japanese,”
33rd GLOW: Recursivity of Information Structure Workshop, University of Wrocaw,
Wrocaw, Poland. (April 13)
Kishimoto, Hideki (2010) “Topicalization and Coordination in Japanese,” 7th Workshop on Altaic
Formal Linguistics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, U.S.A. (October 30)
ĂŕƦŦ (2010)ƾǲƛǣ½¬ǯ!ŠƩ¬( ĮǊǸſ), ŁŕǓǲëƱ28 Ïâ, Łŕâëĺƍëȓ. (11 Ŏ13Ł)Kishimoto, Hideki and Taro Kageyama (2011) “Valency Classes in Japanese I: Standard
Language,” Conference on Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Max Planck
Institute, Leipzig, Germany. (April 15)ĂŕƦŦ (2011) ȿÀǯ+ɀ!ĖĤ6įǣ½Ėóǯ, ŁŕǬǲëƱ142 Ïâhl
AFbMWȫƽ½ǣȧȆǲ!Ėħ!¡Ƹ^?QI] , Łŕâë. (6Ŏ19Ł)

Kishimoto, Hideki (2011) “Compound Adjectives at the Syntax-Morphology Interface,” the 8thMediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM8), Cagliari, Italy. (September 15)--8080 -Kishimoto, Hideki (2012) “Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects in Japanese Nominal-Predicate
Constructions,” Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects within and across Languages
and Language Families, University of Iceland, Reykyavik, Iceland. (June 6)ĂŕƦŦ (2012)ȫ|ŌsŠ¡Ƹ, ÐȤFiZG;]Łŕǲ!ǐȫ|Ō, ÐƮÐǲơƭĪ. (8 Ŏ5 Ł)®² tÍ
Kitahara, Hisatsugu (2010) “Relations in Minimalism,” ŁŕŅƕëÐȤņêV=lc]2010,ȨāëȠâë. (4Ŏ24Ł)Kitahara, Hisatsugu (2010) “On the Labeling Algorithm and its Alleged Exceptions,” The
Language Design, UQAM, Canada. (May 28)
Kitahara, Hisatsugu (2010) “Conflicting Implications: A Preliminary Study of Argument Ellipsis
and Anaphor Binding in Japanese,” SyntaxFest 2010 Workshop: New Horizons in the
Minimalist Program, Indiana University, U.S.A. (June 19)
Kitahara, Hisatsugu (2011) “Language Variation and Parameterization Revisited,” the 25th
Commemorative Conference of the Research Group on Synchronic and Diachronic
Approaches to English, Tsuda College, Tokyo, Japan. (August 27)
Kitahara, Hisatsugu (2012) “Minimization of Universal Grammar, Reliance on Third Factor
Principles, and Feasibility of Inquiry into Evolutionary Origins,” the 9th International
Conference on the Evolution of Language (EVOLANG 9), Kyoto University, Kyoto,
Japan. (March 14)
Epstein, Samuel, Hisatsugu Kitahara & Daniel Seely (2012) “Set Intersection in Bare Phrase
Structure is Generable by Simplest Merge: Implications for Complementizer ‘Trace’
Explanation”, GLOW in Asia IX, Mie University, Mie, Japane (September 4)
Kitahara, Hisatsugu (2012) “How can a Merge-based efficiency-compliant mechanism deal with ahead-initial vs. head-final variation?”, On Merge-Based Generative Procedures:
Maximizing Minimum Machinery, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan. (November 10)

ùŴ ķ
Koizumi, Masatoshi and Katsuo Tamaoka (2008) “Psycholinguistic Evidence for the VP-Internal
Subject Position in Japanese,” the 5th Workshop on Formal Altaic Linguistics, School ofOriental and Asian Studies, University of London, England. (May 24)ùŴķ(2008)ȿ¦ǯ!ǲȬɀȿĺ!ƍǫ.ɀ!ȝ(ĮĚǸſ), r°Ůŀâë,ūƀ, rÐȶ(6 Ŏ10 Ł)-81- 81 -ùŴķ(2008)#!ǱƟǏƨë(ĮĚǸſ), ǕrĊƵâë, ūƀ, rÐȶ(6Ŏ11 Ł)ùŴķ(2008)ȿ¦ǯ!ǲȬɀȿĺ!ƍǫ.ɀ!ȝ(ĮĚǸſ), ž®âë, ūƀ, rÐȶ(6 Ŏ13 Ł)ŗğkùŴķ
(2008)ĺƍ
2ĢÙţȈƾǲţȈ!|zƐǬǲëƱ136 Ïâ, ëǆȠâëȶ(6 Ŏ21 Ł), ŁŕMasatoshi Koizumi (2008) “Cognitive Neuroscience of the Double Object Construction in
Japanese” (Invited Talk), the 10th Annual International Conference of the JapaneseSociety for Language Sciences, University of Shizuoka, Shizuoka, Japan. (July 12)
Noriaki Yusa, Masatoshi Koizumi; Jungho Kim, Yumi Sakai, Naoki Kimura, Kaoru Horie,
Shigeru Sato, Ryuta Kawashima, and Hiroko Hagiwara (2008) “A Neurological Index ofInstructed SLA: Evidence from fMRI,” the 18th Annual Conference of the European
Second Language Association, University of Provence, Aix-en Provence, France.
(September 12)ùŴķ(2008)SEM(ţȈĿƪĔ_OdiB)(ĮĚǸſ), ȵƂâë. (12 Ŏ20 Ł)/%SHǫś6ŁŕǲǆěơƭȴŧƹmkșŔƽǒkŞƑôkƥmȒk©ǙĎçkùŴķ kǛÚũŐkǖ²Ǡç
2ŬǲģÅƍ ȝ52ERP/)ȩŬǲŹ¬!
(2009)ďƫÑčțœĘȪ, Ʊ11 ÏŁŕTPǏŨǍ[MUiBë, YNe>lAcľƁȶ(5 Ŏ28 Ł)ƈƟƎkȰăÇŦkùŴķ kȔ{ȐÎ (2009)ŁŕǲyȖƝƛǲĺ!Ǐƍ2ØŕǲȬ!«Ŝ, ŁŕǬǲëƱ138Ïâ, ƤƑàǲâëȶ(6 Ŏ20Ł)ùŴķ(2009)ǬǗ6Ǝ+Ǐ!(ĮĚǸſ), ®vĆĉƮâëȶ(7 Ŏ10 Ł)

Koizumi, Masatoshi (2009) “Neurophysiological Effects of Early L2 Exposure on theDevelopment of L1” (Invited Talk), the 2009 Summer Special Conference of the New
Korean Association of English Language and Literature: The Brain and Language,
Pukyung National University, Busan, South Korea. (August 17-18)
Koizumi, Masatoshi (2009) “Psycholinguistic Evidence for the VP-Internal Subject Position in
Japanese” (Invited Talk), Fukuoka Linguistic Circle, Fukuoka University, Fukuoka,
Japan. (September 11)
Inubushi, Tomoo, Kazuki Iijima, Masatoshi Koizumi, Kuniyoshi Sakai (2009) “The Effect ofCanonical Word Orders on the Neural Processing of Double Object Sentences: An MEG
Study,” the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Japan Neuroscience Society, Nagoya Congress
Center. (September 16)
Yamaguchi, Sanae, Cornelia Lupsa, Kensuke Emura, Naoki Kimura, Jungho Kim, Kuniya
Nasukawa, Masatoshi Koizumi, Hiroko Hagiwara,Yusa Noriaki (2009) “Effects of L2--8282 -Input Quantity on L2 Pronunciation,” the 1st International Conference on Foreign
Language Learning and Teaching, The Language Institute of Tammasat University, Asia
Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand. (October 16)
Koizumi, Masatoshi (2009) “Experimental Syntax: What We Can Expect” (Invited Talk), the27th Annual Meeting of the English Linguistics Society of Japan, Osaka University.
(November 15)
Yusa, Noriaki, Kuniya Nasukawa, Masatoshi Koizumi, Kim Jungho, Naoki Kimura and Kensuke
Emura (2010) “Unexpected Effects of the Second Language on the First,” New Sounds
2010, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland. (May 3)
Yusa, Noriaki, Jungho Kim, Masatoshi Koizumi, Motoaki Sugiura, Sanae Yamaguchi, Satoru
Yokoyama, Kei Takahashi, Yoko Mano, Youngho Cho, Ryuta Kawashima (2010), “TheImpact of Social Interaction on the Post-Puberty Second Language Acquisition of
Syntax,” the 16th Annual Meeting of the Organization for Human Brain Mapping, theCatalonia Palace of Congresses, Barcelona, Spain. (June 6-10)
Kubo, Takuya, Hajime Ono, Mikihiro Tanaka, Masatoshi Koizumi, and Hiromu Sakai (2012)“How Does Animacy Affect Word Order in a VOS language” (Poster Session), the 25th
Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, City University of New
York, New York. (March 16)
Koizumi, Masatoshi (2012) “On the Word Order Preference in the Kaqchikel Mayan Language”(Invited), The Centre for General Linguistics (ZAS), Berlin, Germany. (May 16)
Koizumi, Masatoshi (2012) “On the Subject-Object Word Order Preference in Sentence
Processing” (Invited), the 8th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics, University of
Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany. (May 20)
Sakai, Hiromu, Takuya Kubo, Hajime Ono, Manami Sato, and Masatoshi Koizumi (2012) “Does
Word Order Influence Non-Verbal Event Description by Speakers of OS Language?”(Poster Session), the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Sapporo,
Japan. (August 4)
Koizumi, Masatoshi, Katsuo Tamaoka, Pedro García, Juan Matzar, Sian Ajsivinac, Jungho Kim,
Yoshiho Yasugi, and Sachiko Kiyama (2012) “Processing Word Order in Kaqchikel,”
Formal Approaches to Mayan Linguistics 2, Patzun, Guatemala. (August 3)
Nasukawa, Kuniya, Yoshito Yasugi, and Masatoshi Koizumi (2012) “Aspiration and Prosodic
Structure in Kaqchikel,” LAGB Annual Meeting 2012, University or Salford,
Manchester, England. (September 6)-83- 83 -Martin, Roger
Martin, Roger and Juan Uriagereka (2008) “Uniformity and Collapse,” Ways of Building
Structure, University of the Basque Country, Vitoria, Spain. (November 14)
Martin, Roger (2008) “Combining and Collapsing Chains,” ƍǷǬǲëǸſ, âȞâë. (8 Ŏ)Martin, Roger (2009) “The Grammar of Infinitival Clauses,” Ʊ2 ÏŁŕǓǲëHWdiBV=lc], åǑæçâë. (4 Ŏ25 Ł)Martin, Roger (2009) “Control as Uniformity,” Workshop “Minimalist Theories of Control”, Ʊ2ÏŁŕǓǲëHWdiBV=lc], åǑæçâë. (4Ŏ26 Ł)
Martin, Roger and Juan Uriagereka (2011) On the Nature of Chains in Minimalism,” The
Minimalist Program: Quo Vadis?, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany. (October
3)

òŕ Ȣm
Miyamoto, Yoichi (2008) “On Extraction out of a Floating Quantifier in Japanese,” Ways ofStructure Building, University of the Basque Country, Vitoria, Spain. (November 13)
Miyamoto, Yoichi and Kazumi Yamada (2009) “Acquisition of Word Order in Contexts by ChildL1 Japanese-L2 English: Left Branch Effects or Specificity Effects?,” the 4thInternational Conference on Formal Linguistics, Beijing Foreign Studies University,
Beijing, China. (July 20)
Miyamoto, Yoichi (2010) “On Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-Ellipsis,”
Linguistics Colloquium, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan. (April 16)òŕȢm (2010) “On Numeral Quantifiers with a Distributive Marker,” ŁŕǓǲëƱ28 ÏFiZG;], Łŕâë. (11 Ŏ14 Ł)Miyamoto, Yoichi and Kazumi Yamada (2010) “On NP-Deletion in the Grammar of JapaneseChild EFL Learners,” the 3rd International Conference on Applied Linguistics, National
Chiayi University, Chiayi, Taiwan. (November 27)
Yamada, Kazumi and Yoichi Miyamoto (2010) “The Influence of Contexts on Acquisition of“How Many” and its Implication for English Education: the Case of Japanese Child
Learners,” the 2nd Asian Conference on Education, Ramada Hotel Osaka, Osaka, Japan.
(December 3)
Miyamoto, Yoichi and Kazumi Yamada (2011) “Fluctuation in the Grammar of Japanese Child
EFL Learners,” Workshop on Languages with and without Articles 2011, Université
Paris 8, Paris, France. (March 4)--8484 -Miyamoto, Yoichi (2011) “On the Event Argument and Anti-Quantifiers in Subject Position,”
Temporal, Modal and Event Interpretation in Natural Language, University of Azores,
Ponta Delgada, Portugal. (June 17)
Takahashi, Nahoko and Yoichi Miyamoto (2011) “On the Nature of Displacement Operations in
Early Child Grammar of Japanese,” The 3rd Asian Conference on Education, Ramada
Hotel Osaka, Osaka, Japan. (October 28)
Miyamoto, Yoichi (2011) “On the Internal-Structure of the Accusative EH-Adjunct Nani-o and
its Implication for Adjunct Condition Effect: A Preliminary Study,” ŁŕǬǲëƱ
243ÏâhlAFbMW, âȞâë. (11 Ŏ20 Ł)
Miyamoto, Yoichi (2011) “On Temporal (Non-)Ambiguity in English and Japanese Clausal
Adjuncts,” ŁŕǓĺëȝǤĶȓƱ6 Ïâ, ȝǤâë. (12Ŏ18 Ł)
Yamada, Kazumi and Yoichi Miyamoto (2012) “Acquisition of Null Elements in SLA: A
Comparative Study of Japanese EFL Learners and Spanish JFL Learners,” Workshop on
Languages with and without Articles 2012, Université Paris 8, Paris, France. (March 16)òŕȢm (2012) ƱyǬǲ
2ȩȮÒƛǥƺ ȝ2mǇõ, ŁŕǓĺëƱ84ÏâFiZG;]ǬǲƍǷ 0+ƱyǬǲƊěơƭȼǓǲĸǌ!ĴƄ6ů
,, ÷âë(ƎƑ@`iSH). (5 Ŏ26 Ł)ȗŗ Ń¼
Nomura, Masashi and Yuka Makita (2012) “Defectiveness, Cliticization, and Long-Distance
Reflexives in Icelandic” (Poster Session), GLOW in Asia 9, Mie University, Tsu, Japan.
(September 5)ȀŊ ŪƔAgbayani, Brian and Masao Ochi (2008) “Feature/Category Chains in Parasitic Gap
Constructions,” YNU 1st International Workshop on Chains in Minimalism, ťŻÐƮâ
ë. (August 8)
Agbayani, Brian and Masao Ochi (2008) “Split Lexical Insertion Scrambling in Japanese” (Poster
Session), the 2nd International Conference on East Asian Linguistics, Simon Fraser
University, Vancouver, Canada. (November 7)ȀŊŪƔ (2008) Š!|ŌƾǲƛûĪĠ , ŁŕǬǲëƱ 137 ÏâhlAFbMW ,ȘŲâë. (11 Ŏ29 Ł)ȀŊŪƔ (2008) “Wh-interrogatives and Left Periphery,” ŁŕǓĺëȝǤĶȓƱ3 ÏâhlAFbMW, ȝǤëȠâë. (12Ŏ20 Ł).

-85- 85 -Ochi, Masao (2010) “On Extended Nominal Projections in Japanese” (Invited Colloquium Talk),
University of Connecticut, Storrs, U.S.A. (February 26)
Huang, C.-T. James and Masao Ochi (2010) “Classifiers and Nominal Structure: A Parametric
Approach and its Consequences,” GLOW in Asia 8, Beijing Language and Culture
University, Beijing, China. (August 13)ŖĄ Ț¼
Sugisaki, Koji (2008) “Swiping in Child English” (Poster Session), the 27th West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles, U.S.A. (May17)
Sugisaki, Koji (2008) “Nominative-Genitive Conversion and its Transitivity Restriction inChild Japanese,” Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America 3,
University of Connecticut, Storrs, U.S.A. (September 4)
Sugisaki, Koji (2009) “On Children's NEEDs,” GLOW in Asia 7, English and Foreign Languages
University, Hyderabad, India. (February 26)
Sugisaki, Koji (2009) “Argument Ellipsis in Child Japanese: A Preliminary Report” (Poster
Session), the 10th Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, Keio University, Tokyo,
Japan. (March 14)
Sugisaki, Koji (2009) “Children’s Knowledge of the Structural Difference between Relative
Clauses and Wh-Questions in Japanese,” the 6th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics,
Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan. (September 5)
Sugisaki, Koji, and William Snyder (2010) “Fragments in Child English and Spanish,” the 11th
Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan. (March 12)
Sugisaki, Koji, and William Snyder (2010) “Children's Grammatical Conservatism: New
Evidence,” GLOW in Asia 8, Beijing Language and Culture University, Beijing, China.
(August 13)
Sugisaki, Koji (2010) “Configurational Structure in Child Japanese,” Generative Approaches toLanguage Acquisition North America 4 (GALANA 4), University of Toronto, Toronto,
Canada. (September 1)
Sugisaki, Koji (2010) “The Distinction between Case Markers and Postpositions in Early ChildJapanese: New Evidence for Children’s Grammatical Conservatism” (Poster Session),the 35th Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston University,
Boston, U.S.A. (November 6)
Sugisaki, Koji (2010) “Argument Ellipsis and Wh-questions in Child Japanese” (Invited),--8686 -Workshop on Acquisition of Scope and Phrase Structure: Comparative Perspectives,
Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. (December 23)
Sugisaki, Koji (2011) “Argument Ellipsis and its Constraints in Child Japanese” (Invited), The
International Society for Chomskyan Studies 2011 Winter Conference, Konkuk
University, Seoul, Korea. (February 12)
Sugisaki, Koji (2011) “Word Order Variations in Child Japanese” (Invited), Workshop “Objects Information Structure, Prosody and Acquisition,” University of Tromsø, Norway. (April
5)
Sugisaki, Koji (2011) “Preposition Stranding: its Parametric Variation and Acquisition” (Invited),
Workshop on Verbal Elasticity, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain. (October 4)
Sugisaki, Koji (2011) “A Constraint on Argument Ellipsis in Child Japanese,” the 36th Boston
University Conference on Language Development, Boston University, Boston, U.S.A.
(November 5)
Sugisaki, Koji (2012) “The Acquisition of Argument Ellipsis and its Constraints in Japanese” (ØǵǸſ), Ʊ5 ÏŁŕǓǲëÐȤņêV=lc], Ɠ°âë. (4 Ŏ21 Ł)
Sugisaki, Koji (2012) “Subject-Auxiliary Inversion in Child English Revisited” (Invited),
EVOLANG IX Workshop on Theoretical Linguistics/Biolinguistics, Kyoto University,
Kyoto, Japan. (March 13)
Sugisaki, Koji (2012) “Poverty of the stimulus in the acquisition of Japanese scrambling” (Poster
Session), 6th Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics Conference (FAJL 6),
Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany. (September 27)
Sugisaki, Koji (2012) “The ban on adjunct ellipsis in child Japanese” (Poster Session), the 37th
annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD 37), Boston
University, Boston, U.S.A. (November 3)ȳŧ â±
Kimura, Hiroko and Daiko Takahashi (2009) “In-Situ Remnants in Sluicing,” the 2nd
International Workshop on Chains in Minimalism, Yokohama National University,
Yokohama, Japan. (August 3)
ener, Serkan and and Daiko Takahashi (2009) “Argument Ellipsis in Japanese and Turkish,” the6th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics, Nagoya University. (September 4)
Kimura, Hiroko and Daiko Takahashi (2009) “NPI and Predicative Remnants in Japanese
Sluicing,” the 19th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference, University of Hawai’i atMãnoa, USA. (November 12)-87- 87 -Takahashi, Daiko (2010) “Comparative Syntax of Argument Ellipsis,” Fukuoka Linguistic Circle,
Kyusyu University, Fukuoka, Japan. (July 17)
Takahashi, Daiko (2011) “Identity for Argument Ellipsis,” Sendai Area Circle of Linguistics,
Tohoku Gakuin University, Sendai, Japan. (July 18)
Takahashi, Daiko (2012) “Parallelism for Elided Arguments,” Formal Approaches to Japanese
Linguistics 6 (ZAS), Berlin, Germany. (September 26)

ȳȗ ƣy
Takano, Yuji (2008) “Scrambling and Control,” Yokohama National University Syntax Workshop,
Yokohama National University, Yokohama, Japan. (March 1)
Takano, Yuji (2010) “A Comparative Approach to Japanese Postposing,” Tsing Hua Workshop of
Theoretical Linguistics, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan. (March 23)ȳȗƣy (2012)áȖǟĺŘǁ!Ʃ¬ś, ǬǲëǸſkhlAFbMW, ƤĨâ
ë. (1 Ŏ28Ł)Takano, Yuji (2012) “Movement of Antecedents,” Sendai Area Circle of Linguistics, Tohoku
Gakuin University, Sendai, Japan. (February 25)ƃƑ 
Takita, Kensuke (2010) “On Scrambling of VP in Japanese,” Ling-Talk@NTHU, National TsingHua University, Hsin-Chu, Taiwan. (February 22)
Takita, Kensuke (2010) “Sluicing in Japanese Revisited,” Sendai Area Circle of Linguistics(SACL), Tohoku Gakuin University, Sendai, Japan. (July 17)
Takita, Kensuke (2010) “V-Stranding Sluicing in Japanese and its Implications,” the 41st Annual
Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 41), University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A. (October 24)
Takita, Kensuke (2011) “LF-Copying in Ellipsis and the Nature of Chains,” Chains in
Minimalism, Yokohama National University, Yokohama, Japan. (February 12)
Takita, Kensuke (2011) “On (Pseudo-)Right Dislocation in Japanese,” GLOW in Asia Workshop
for Young Scholars, Mie University, Tsu, Japan. (September 8)
Takita, Kensuke (2011) “Voice Mismatches under Sluicing in English and Japanese,” the 66th
Meeting of The English Literary Society of Japan, Tohoku Branch, Tohoku University,
Sendai, Japan. (November 27)--8888 -Takita, Kensuke (2012) “Extractions from Ellipsis Sites: A Preliminary Study,” Sendai Area
Circle of Linguistics (SACL), Tohoku Gakuin University, Sendai, Japan. (February 25)
Takita, Kensuke (2012) “Ellipsis: Missing Links between Form and Meaning,” the 34th Mie
University Linguistics Colloquium (co-hosted by Philologia), Mie University, Tsu,
Japan. (May 16)
Takita, Kensuke and Nobu Goto (2012) “Some Asymmetries in Japanese N'-deletion and their
Theoretical Implications,” Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 6, ZAS, Berlin,
Germany. (September 26)
ƃƑ (2012) “Voice-Mismatches under Antecedent-Contained Sluicing,” ŁŕǓǲëƱ30 ÏâhlAFbMW\Q[dHPkWgBc]
2£ȡƌǺ, ĥĦǅÜâë. (11 Ŏ10 Ł)
Ǚ{´ŭÂkƃƑ (2012)ƍƒ¦ǯȯ!ƎħǃDiPgleƴ!ȱ, ŁŕǬǲëƱ145 Ïâ, vĆâë. (11 Ŏ24Ł)ż ËuUra, Hiroyuki (2008) “An Axiomatic Deduction System for Minimalist Syntax,” ŁŕǓĺëȝǤĶȓƱ3ÏâhlAFbMW, ȝǤëȠâë. (12Ŏ20Ł)ƠȗúkżËu (2009)ƱyǬǲǆě
2ĲƛȏĬȁƩǴŁŕǲŘǁ!
áȖSc^Jlś, Ʊ139 ÏŁŕǬǲë, ƤĨâë. (11 Ŏ28 Ł)źȗƞwkżËu (2009)Łŕǲ!ÿŠ|ŌIrrealis Mood , ŁŕǬǲëƱ139 Ïâ,
ƤĨâë. (11 Ŏ28 Ł)

Ishino, Nao and Hiroyuki Ura (2010) “Reflexives in Inter-language Grammar and Acquisition
through Feature Transfer,” the 11th Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, Keio
University, Tokyo, Japan. (March 13)
Ishino, Nao and Hiroyuki Ura (2010) “Japanese Anaphors and Feature Binding” (Invited Talk),YNUƍǷǬǲëǸſ, ťŻÐƮâë. (3 Ŏ16 Ł)żËukƠȗú (2010)ĺƍŘǁ!ȯÔǷ Multiple Agree , ř®âëǬǲëǸſ, ř®âë. (3 Ŏ)Ura, Hiroyuki and Nao Ishino (2011) “Split-bound Anaphora and Binding Chain,” International
Workshop “Chain in Minimalism,” Yokohama National University, Yokohama, Japan.
(February 13)żËukƠȗú (2011)ƱyǬǲǆě
2ƾǲƺĠȁƩ—Łŕǲ³%rÐǲċÀǯ6rĜ , Ʊ11 ÏƱyǬǲǆěëčũâ, ĺĸâë. (6 Ŏ12Ł)-89- 89 -żËu (2012) “Generative Syntax for Music Tonality,” ȝǤëȠǓƶĺë, ȝǤëȠâë.
(9Ŏ22Ł)ƠȗúkżËu (2012) “Distributive Binding and Two Types of Binding Theory in Syntax,” ŁŕǓǲëƱ30 Ïâ, ĥĝǅÜâë. (11 Ŏ10 Ł)ȾȽ â ëȠƎkơƎȾÞ ¯ȕMurasugi, Keiko and Chisato Fuji (2008) “Root Infinitives in Japanese and the Late Acquisitionof Head-Movement,” Boston University Conference on Language Development 33,
Boston University, Boston, U.S.A. (November 1)
Murasugi, Keiko and Chisato Fuji (2008) “Root Infinitives: The Parallel Routes the Japanese- andKorean-Speaking Children Step In,” the 18th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference,
City University of New York, New York, U.S.A. (November 13)
Murasugi, Keiko, Tomomi Nakatani, and Chisato Fuji (2009) “The Roots of Root Infinitive
Analogues: The Surrogate Verb Forms Common in Adult and Child Grammars,” Boston
University Conference on Language Development 34, Boston University, Boston, U.S.A.
(November 7)
Sawada, Naoko, Keiko Murasugi, and Chisato Fuji (2009) “A Theoretical Account for the‘Erroneous’ Subjects in Child Japanese and the Specification of Tense,” Boston
University Conference on Language Development 34, Boston University, Boston, U.S.A.
(November 7)
Murasugi, Keiko, Tomomi Nakatani, and Chisato Fuji (2009) “A Trihedral Approach to theOvergeneration of no in the Acquisition of Japanese Noun Phrases,” the 19th
Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference, University of Hawai’i at Mãnoa, U.S.A.
(November 12)²¸ Ŋçǽšųuk²¸Ŋç (2010) Łŕǲȝƴ!ƾǲƵƘ, ƳŶâë. (6 Ŏ26Ł)ȝŁŕǬǲë Ʊ140 Ïâ

Akaso, Naoyuki and Tomoko Haraguchi (2010) “Japanese Relative Clauses: Larger than TP,”GLOW in Asia 8, Beijing Language and Culture University, Beijing, China. (August 13)ǽšųuk²¸Ŋç (2011) ¦ǯ!ǾĠ 0ǦŁŕǲȝƴŌ, ŁŕǬǲëƱ144 Ïâ, Łŕâë. (6 Ŏ18Ł)--9090 -

2

k!|

Haraguchi, Tomoko and Yuji Shuhama (2011) “On the Catography of Modality in Japanese,”
GLOW in Asia: Workshop for Young Scholars, Mie University, Tsu, Japan. (September
7)
Akaso, Naoyuki and Tomoko Haraguchi (2011) “Adverbs and Nominative/Genitive Conversion
in Japanese Relative Clauses,” The Minimalist Workshop: Quo Vadis?, University of
Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany. (October 3)
Akaso, Naoyuki and Tomoko Haraguchi (2011) “On the Agent/Theme Asymmetry in JapaneseNominative/Genitive Conversion,” ŁŕǬǲëƱ145Ïâ, âȞâë. (11 Ŏ26Ł)Akaso, Naoyuki and Tomoko Haraguchi (2012) “On the Agent/Theme Asymmetry in JapaneseNominative/Genitive Conversion,” the 8th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics,
University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany. (May 19)
Haraguchi, Tomoko (2012) “Japanese Modals in the CP-zone,” 51st Students’ Conference,
University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany. (May 19)
Akaso, Naoyuki and Tomoko Haraguchi (2012) “Genitive Subject Positions in Japanese,”
Generative Initiatives in Syntactic Theory 6, Universit of Ghent. (October 18)rǹ ´Ǆ
Murasugi, Keiko, Tomomi Nakatani, and Chisato Fuji (2009) “The Roots of Root Infinitive
Analogues: The Surrogate Verb Forms Common in Adult and Child Grammars,” Boston
University Conference on Language Development 34, Boston University, Boston, U.S.A.
(November 7)
Murasugi, Keiko, Tomomi Nakatani, and Chisato Fuji (2009) “A Trihedral Approach to theOvergeneration of no in the Acquisition of Japanese Noun Phrases,” the 19th
Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference, University of Hawai’i at Mãnoa, U.S.A.
(November 12)
Murasugi, Keiko and Tomomi Nakatani (2010) “Three Types of ‘Root Infinitives’: Theoretical
Implications from Child Japanese,” the 20th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference,
University of Oxford, Oxford, England. (October 1)ƂƑ úç
Sawada, Naoko, Keiko Murasugi, and Chisato Fuji (2009) “A Theoretical Account for the‘Erroneous’ Subjects in Child Japanese and the Specification of Tense,” Boston
University Conference on Language Development 34, Boston University, Boston, U.S.A.
(November 7)-91- 91 -Sawada, Naoko and Keiko Murasugi (2010) “A Cross-Linguistic Approach to the ‘Erroneous’
Genitive: Underspecification of Tense in Child Grammar Revisited,” Generative
Approaches to Language Acquisition North America 4, University of Toronto, Toronto,
Canada. (September 1)ƃƑ 
Takita, Kensuke (2008) “An Argument for Argument Ellipsis from -Sika NPIs,” the 39th Annual
Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 39), Cornell University, Ithaca, New
York, U.S.A. (November 8)
Takita, Kensuke (2008) “Argument Ellipsis in Japanese Right Dislocation,” the 18th
Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference, City University of New York, New York,U.S.A. (November 13)
Takita, Kensuke (2008) “Concealed Argument Ellipsis in Japanese Right Dislocation,” Harvard
Linguistics Theory Group, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA., U.S.A. (December 9)
Takita, Kensuke (2009) “‘Genuine’ Sluicing in Japanese,” the 45th Annual Meeting of the
Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 45), University of Chicago, U.S.A. (April 18)
Takita, Kensuke (2009) “VP-Scrambling, Linearization Preservation, and the Theories ofControl,” the 40th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 40), MIT,
Cambridge, MA., U.S.A. (November 15)--9292 -  1
Nanzan Linguistics 8  ON THE CALCULUS OF CONTROLAND LACK OF OVERT AGREEMENT MORPHOLOGY *Tomohiro Fujii
Yokohama National University

1.

Introduction

The finite/nonfinite distinction has been playing a crucial role in explaining properties ofobligatory control (OC) [e.g., (1a)] and of raising [e.g., (2a)]. A well-accepted way ofdescribing the relevant generalization is by saying that OC and raising are only found with
nonfinite subordinate clauses. That is, finite clauses — those inflected for tense andagreement — do not allow either process [(1b), (2b)].
(1) a. Lisa promised [PRO to leave].
b. * Lisa promised [PRO would leave]. (cf. Lisa promised she would leave.)(2) a. Lisa seems [t to have left].
b. * Lisa seems [t has left]. (cf. It seems that Lisa has left.)
This traditional notion of finiteness has been challenged by Landau (2004, 2006). Putting
huge data from various languages in perspective, Landau observes that environmentsallowing OC do not form a natural class and that “the only generalization in this domain thatappears to be universal is the incompatibility of indicative clauses with OC” (Landau
2004:849-50).
Landau’s typology, as well as a simplified version of it proposed by Nunes (2008) and
Boeckx, Hornstein and Nunes (2010) (to which we will turn in section 2), crucially uses
semantic tense ([T]) and agreement ([Agr]) to correctly predict when OC is possible and when
it fails. In a theory of this type (which we call a Landau-style typology of control), the“incompatibility of indicative clauses with OC” is explained by saying that the Infl headspecified [+Agr] and [+T] necessarily licenses a lexical subject. Taking Landau’s typology as
the point of departure, the present paper asks what a Landau-style typology of control can say
about a language without overt agreement morphology. More specifically, the paper attempts
to seek a minimally modified version of the theory that can accommodate Japanese, a* Part of the material in this paper is based on a paper presented at the Fourth Workshop of the
Nanzan International Research Project on Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition, July 2009,
Nanzan University. I’d like to thank the audience members from whom I received valuable comments.

-95-

2008

2012









language that exhibits no overt morphological agreement but does exhibit overt tense
morphology.
In what follows, it is claimed (i) that due to the lack of overt agreement morphology inJapanese, it is not immediately clear whether the Landau-style typology, as it stands, canaccount for the distribution of OC in the language; and (ii) that the theory can be made toempirically work by revising the feature [Agr] in such a way that it can deal with overt tense
morphology as well as overt agreement morphology.
The organization of the paper is as follows. Section 2 introduces the backgroundassumptions concerning Landau’s ‘scale of finiteness’ proposal. We review Landau’s theory
and the modified version of it that has been proposed by Nunes (2008) and Boeckx, Hornsteinand Nunes (2010). Section 3 examines the behavior of OC and non-control complements
containing overt tense markers in Japanese, proposing the generalization that independent
tense complements, unlike untensed and dependent tense complements, resist OC. Section 4seeks a way of making a Landau-style typology with this generalization, given that Japaneseapparently lacks [Agr]. Three alternatives are considered. Section 5 concludes the paper.
2.

The Calculus of Control (Landau 2004, 2006)

This section lays out the assumptions employed in Landau’s proposal andNunes/BH&N’s version of it. Proposing that [T(ense)] and [Agr(eement)] determine the
distribution of OC PRO, Landau (2004, 2006) pursues the hypothesis that “an Infl head
positively specified for both features [+T, +Agr] will necessarily license a lexical subject”
while “an Infl head with any negative specification — [+T, Agr], [T, +Agr], [T, Agr] —will necessarily license PRO” (Landau 2006:160). This ‘calculus of control’ predicts thatclauses are classified into four types, as the two binary features can be combined in fourways. In Landau’s more elaborate implementation of the theory, though, [Agr] and [T] on C°
are also taken into consideration for the “calculus of control”. Nunes (2008) and Boeckx,
Hornstein and Nunes (2010) (BH&N, henceforth) propose to simplify Landau’s original
proposal by restricting the locus of clause type variation to T° (or Infl°), rather than both T°
and C°. The present paper assumes with Nunes and BH&N that we need no reference to C,
mainly because the system without [T] and [Agr] on C° still seems rich enough to address theissue of interest that arises in Japanese.1
Another significant difference between Landau’s and Nunes/BH&N’s version has to dowith the meaning of the symbols [+Agr] and [Agr], as noted in Nunes (2008) and BH&N.
For Landau, “+” reflects overt morphological agreement inflection. Thus infinitival T°, being
uninflected, is specified [Agr] in the original proposal. For Nunes/BH&N, the meaning of“+” and “” is somewhat more abstract: [+Agr] indicates that the relevant -features of T° are
fully specified while [Agr] indicates that they are -deficient or null. An example of1

See Polinsky and Potsdam (2006) for another way of simplifying Landau’s proposal. They consider
the features on C exclusively, in contrast to Nunes (2008) and BH&N.

-96- 96 -The Calculus of Control and Lack of Overt Agreement Morphology (T. Fujii)

-deficiency of this sort comes from Brazilian Portuguese. Analyzing finite control andhyper-raising in Brazilian Portuguese in which OC PRO and NP-trace occur with clearly
inflected complements, Nunes (2008) and BH&N argue the following: the T° of Brazilian
Portuguese “finite” clauses is marked [+Agr] when it enters the numeration with both person
and number features. “Finite” T°, however, is sometimes marked [Agr] when it lacks anumber feature in the numeration. On the surface, the two kinds of T look the same due to theweakening of finite verbal morphology of the language. The point is that the characterizationof “” in terms of deficiency allows us to avoid analyzing finite control as involving a T°
specified [+T, +Agr].2 This helps to make the “calculus of control” considerably simple(BH&N: 66). Throughout the paper, I assume Nunes’s and HB&N’s interpretation of “+” and“”.
Landau and Nunes/BH&N also differ on how these feature specifications lead todetermine the distribution of OC PRO. Although this difference between the two theories
does not affect the conclusions of this paper, let us take a brief look in order to complete thepicture. For Landau, a clausal head, if specified [+T, +Agr], is assigned a feature (called [+R])that makes the T° require a referential DP, yielding no control. Elsewhere, T° is assigned [R]
and thereby requires an anaphoric DP like OC PRO as its specifier. For Nunes/BH&N, OC
PRO is NP-trace, and NP-movement is allowed only from a non-case position. By assumingthat only T° with [+T, +Agr] assigns nominative case, NP-movement can be made to apply
when T° has any of the three other feature combinations.
Given these caveats, let’s review fundamental data points that lead Landau (2004, 2006)
to posit the four clause types. Consider the examples given in (3)–(7).
(3) [T, Agr]: Untensed infinitives in English = OC (Landau 2000)
a. John managed to solve the problem.
b. * Yesterday John managed to solve the problem tomorrow.
(4) [+T, Agr]: Dependent tense infinitives in English = OC (Landau 2000)
a. John decided to solve the problem.
2

Hebrew 3rd-person subjunctives, as reported in Landau (2004), lead to the same situation. Examples
are given below. (ib) involves OC even though the embedded predicate is inflected. See Landau(2004), Nunes (2008), and BH&N (p. 67).
(i)a. Hem1
they

kivu
hoped

e-atem2 /pro2
that-you (pl.) / protelxu
will-go.2pl

ha-baytahomemukdam.
early‘They hoped that you (pl) would go home early.’b. Hem1
they

kivu
hoped

e-hem1/2 / pro1/*2
that-they / pro

yelxu
will-go.3pl‘They hoped that they would go home early.’-97- 97 -ha-bayta mukdam.
home
early

2008

2012







b. Yesterday John hoped to solve the problem tomorrow.
(5) [T, +Agr]: Untensed subjunctives in Greek  OC (Varlokosta 1994)
a. o
the

Yanis
John

kseri/arxizi
knows/beingsnaSbj

kolimba.
swims‘John {knows how, begins} to swim.’b. * tora,
now

o
the

Yanis
John

kseri/arxizi
naknows/beings Sbj

kolimbaiswims

avrio.
tomorrow‘Now, John {knows how, begins} to swim tomorrow.’(6) [+T, +Agr]: Dependent tense subjunctives in Greek  OC (Varlokosta 1994)
a. o
the

Yanis
John

elpizi/thelinahopes/wants Sbj

figi.
leaves‘John {wants, hopes} to leave.’b. tora,
now

o
the

Yanis
John

elpizi/thelihopes/wants

na
Sbj

figi
leavesavrio.
tomorrow‘Now John {wants, hopes} to leave tomorrow.’(7) [+T, +Agr]: Indicatives in English  OC
a. John hoped that he will win.
b. Yesterday, John hoped that he will win tomorrow.
Let us begin with the English infinitive constructions given in (3) and (4). In both
examples, the complements are infinitives, so their T heads are specified [Agr]. They do not
inflect. (3) and (4) are different in terms of semantic tense, though. (3a) is an example of what
is called an untensed complement. Here the embedded T° is negatively specified for [T]. The
value of [T] is diagnosed by looking at the (im)possibility of a tense mismatch. As indicatedby the ungrammaticality of (3b), the implicative verb manage does not allow the matrix andthe embedded event to contain conflicting time expressions. Thus the embedded T° is
specified [T].
(4a) is an example of dependent tense complements, which occur with verbs like hope.
Since these complements always receive a future-oriented or irrealis reading, theirinterpretation is not as flexible as that of indicative (i.e., fully inflected) complements. Despite
that, however, the dependent tense complement is not untensed, as evidenced by thegrammaticality of the tense mismatch example in (4b). Therefore the embedded T° in (4) is
positively specified for [T]. The point is that when T° bears [Agr], OC is possible regardlessof the value of [T]. (The reader is referred to Landau (2000) for detailed classification ofvarious selecting predicates.)-98- 98 -The Calculus of Control and Lack of Overt Agreement Morphology (T. Fujii)(5) and (6) are examples of Greek subjunctive complements. Each embedded T° is
specified [+Agr], since subjunctive verbs exhibit overt agreement morphology (see Iatridou
1993, Terzi 1992, Varlokosta 1994 and others). As for their semantic tense, the complementsof begin and know (how) are untensed exactly like the English implicative complement seen
above, as shown in (5b). Hence their embedded T° bears [T]. The complements of hope andwant, however, allow a tense mismatch, as exemplified by (6b) (Varlokosta 1994). Since[Agr] is invariantly marked “+” in (5) and (6), only when the other feature, i.e., [T], bears
negatively valued is OC possible, as predicted by the calculus of control.
Finally, indicative complements like the one in (7) are considered to have an inflected T°(i.e., specified [+Agr]) and to be tensed (i.e., specified [+T]). Indicatives are different fromdependent tense infinitives in that their tense is not dependent on the matrix verb in therelevant sense; E.g., Monique decided to be in Paris does not have the simultaneous readingthat Monique decided that she was in Paris does have, as noted in Abusch (2004). As far as
specification of [T] on T° is concerned, however, they are treated the same, being specified[+T].
The four categories and their category members are presented below (see BH&N, p.38).
(8)[+T, Agr]• Untensed• uninflected• infinitives, etc.

Obligatory control[+T, Agr][T, +Agr]• Tensed infinitives,• Hebrew 3rd-person• subjunctives,• Brazilian• Portuguese finite• clauses, etc.

• Balkan untensed• subjunctives, etc.

No control[+T, +Agr]• English• indicatives,• Balkan tensed• subjunctives, etc.

Assuming that the Landau style approach to the scale of finiteness is correct, I will turn toJapanese in next section.
3.

The Basic Japanese Data: OC into Ru/Ta-Clauses

Japanese does not exhibit overt person/gender/number morphology on predicates. The
language instead has overt agglutinative tense morphology in which the so-called present
tense marker -ru and the past tense marker -ta are contrasted. In (9a) and (9b), -ru and -ta
respectively attach to the verbal root tabe- ‘eat’.
(9) a. tabe-ru
eat-Prsb. tabe-ta
eat-Pst-99- 99 -

2008

2012









Also important to note about Japanese verbal morphology is that it is not clear that thelanguage has the morphological verbal category “infinitive”. The fact that the citation form ofa verb is the present tense form may be taken as an anecdotal indication that the language
lacks infinitives. The language also has no indication of having the morphological category“subjunctive”. In a nutshell, therefore, it is not straightforward at all to make a three way
distinction among indicative, subjunctive and infinitive based on overt morphologicalevidence in Japanese.3
Given these, it may be less surprising that some OC complements, in terms of verbal
morphology, do not look much different from non-control complements that can be translated
into other languages as indicatives: Whether controlled or not, complements can be marked
with -ru or -ta. We will review core data in Japanese below; see Fujii (2008) and references
cited therein for fuller discussion.
(10)–(13) illustrate how the ru-complement of tikau ‘swear’ differs from that of
kangaeru ‘think/consider’ with respect to some well-known diagnostics for OC. Consider the(a)-examples first.4(10)

karera-wa kantoku-ni [ec otagai-o naguri-aw-u
they-Top director-Dat
e.o.-Acc hit-Recip-Prs{a. *tikat-te,
b. kangae-te}hosikatta.
{a. *swear-Grnd b. think-Grndwantedkoto]-oC-Acc‘They wanted the (movie) director to {a. swear to hit each other, b. think about themhitting each other}.’(11)[Mary-no[Mary-Gen{a. #tikatta,{a. #swore

titioya]-wa [ec sono
father-Top
thatb. kangaeta}.
b. thought

byooin-dehospital-insyussansu-ru
give birth-Prskoto]-oC-Acc‘Mary’s father {a. swore to give birth in that hospital, b. thought about her giving
birth in that hospital}.’3This does not mean that we cannot make such a mood distinction at a more abstract, syntactic level
for Japanese. See Watanabe (1996) and Uchibori (2000) for such attempts. See also Landau’s (2004,
2006) analysis of Hebrew 3rd-person subjunctives.

4

In those examples, the nominalizing complementizer koto can be replaced by another nominalizing
complementizer no, though native speakers’ judgments may vary; see Kuno (1973). We abstract awayfrom the issue of complementizer choice.

-100- 100 -The Calculus of Control and Lack of Overt Agreement Morphology (T. Fujii)(12)Mary-wa [ec zibun-no
Mary-Top
self-Gen{a. tikatta, b. kangaeta}.
{a. swore b. thought

peesu-de sigoto-otuzuke-rukoto]-opace-atwork-Acc continue-Prs C-Acc
Butyoo-moda.
manager-also Cop.Prs‘Mary {a. swore to continue her work, b. thought about continuing her work} at her
own pace. And the manager, too.’
Strict reading possible with (b), but not with (a).
(13)

sono kiokusoositu kanzya-wa [ec taiinsu-ru koto]-o {a. tikatta, b. kangaeta}.
that amnesiac
patient-Top
leave-Prs C-Acc {a. swore b. thought‘The amnesiac {a. swore to leave the hospital, b. thought about leaving the
hospital}.’Non-de se possible with (b), but not with (a).

These (a)-examples clearly show that the verb swear takes a ru-complement and induces OC.
The null subject of the ru-clause cannot be bound long distance [(10a)]; A non-c-commanding
NP cannot antecede the ec [(11a)]; the ec does not support a strict reading [(12a)]; and the ec
cannot be interpreted in a non-de se manner [(13a)]. All these indicate that the null subject is
OC PRO. (I will return to the (b)-examples shortly.)
A parallel set of examples can be constructed with ta-complements, which are
past-oriented. In the (a)-examples in (14)–(17) with the verb kuyamu ‘regret’, thecomplements are in the past tense.
(14)

karera-wa [kantoku-ni[ec
they-Top[director-Dat{a. *kuyan-de, b. kangae-te}{a. *swear-Grnd b. think-Grndotagai-o naguri-at-ta koto]-oe.o.-Acc hit-Recip-Pst C-Acc
hosikatta.
wanted‘They wanted the movie director to {a. regret having hitting each other, b. think
about them having hit each other}.’(15)[Mary-no titioya]-wa[ec sono[Mary-Gen father-Topthat{a. #kuyanda, b. kangaeta}.
{a. #regretted b. thought

byooin-dehospital-insyussansi-ta
give birth-Pstkoto]-oC-Acc‘Mary’s father {a. regretted having given birth in that hospital, b. thought about her
having given birth in that hospital}.’-101- 101 -

2008

(16)

2012









Mary-wa [ec zibun-no peesu-de sigoto-o tuzuke-ta
koto]-oMary-Top
self-Gen pace-at work-Acc continue-Pst C-Acc{a. kuyanda, b. kangaeta}.
Butyoo-moda.
{a. regretted b. thoughtmanager-also Cop.Prs‘Mary {a. regretted having continued her work, b. thought about having continued
her work at her own pace}. And the manager, too.’
Strict reading possible with (b), but not with (a).

(17)

sono kiokusoositu kanzya-wa [ec taiinsu-ta koto]-o {a. kuyanda, b. kangaeta}.
that amnesiac
patient-Top
leave-Pst C-Acc {a. regretted b. thought‘The amnesiac {a. regretted having left the hospital, b. thought about having left thehospital.’
Non-de se possible with (b), but not with (a).

In (14)–(17), the (a)-examples exhibit a sharp contrast with their counterparts given in (b).
While kuyamu ‘regret’ yields OC, kangaeru ‘think (about)’ does not.
What is the exact nature of the cut between the (a)-examples and (b)-examples? Building
on observations made in the past literature, Fujii (2006) observes that OC ensues when thetense morphology of the relevant clause is “fixed”, i.e. does not allow alternation of -ta and-ru (Nakau 1973:225, Kuno 1973:219, Ohso 1976:90ff., Saito 1985:267, n34, Sakaguchi
1990, Ueda 1990:76, Watanabe 1996, among others). He states the generalization as follows:(18)

If the T of a subordinate clause cannot have -ta or cannot have -ru in environment E,
it bears [finite] in E.

Note, as shown in (19), that tikau ‘swear’ and kuyamu ‘regret’ resist occurring with ata-complement and a ru-complement, respectively. Therefore, those complements are[finite], according to (18). This is a good result since these are OC complements, as we saw
above.
(19) a. * Mari-wa issyookenmei
Mari-Top hard

hatarak-u
work-Prs

koto-oC-Acckuyanda.
regretted

b. * Mari-wa issyookenmei
Mari-Top hard

hatarai-ta
work-Pst

koto-oC-Acc

tikatta.
swore

Now return to the (b)-examples of (10)–(17). Since kangaeru allows both ru-complements[(10)–(13)] and ta-complements [(14)–(17)], (18) accounts for the fact that the complementsof the verb in these examples cannot be [finite] and thus is not subject to OC.
The data in (19) suggest that kuyamu and tikau take dependent tense complements. (20a)and (21) confirm it. (Also, it is not surprising that the complement of kangaeru ‘think’ has its
own tense domain, as shown in (20b), since it is an independent tense complement.)-102- 102 -The Calculus of Control and Lack of Overt Agreement Morphology (T. Fujii)(20)Mari-wa asita
hatarak-u koto-oMari-Top tomorrow work-Prs C-Acc

kinoo{a. tikatta, b. kangaeta}.
yesterday {a. swore b. thought‘Yesterday Mari {a. swore to work tomorrow, b. thought about working tomorrow}.’(21)

Mari-wa kinoo
hataraki-ta koto-oMari-Top tomorrow work-Prs C-Acc

asukuyam-uyesterday regret-Prs

daroo.
will‘Tomorrow Mari will regret having worked yesterday.’
It is not only dependent tense complements that (18) correctly predicts to allow OC.
Untensed OC complements also do not have the ability to support both -ru and -ta. Nakau(1973:278) notes that the aspectual verb hazimeru ‘begin’ can take a ru-complement andinduces OC (and raising). As evidenced by the ungrammatical tense mismatch in (22a), theru-complement with begin is untensed, even though a tense marker is overtly present. That is,the complement of begin, unlike a dependent tense complement [(22b)] does not have its own
tense domain. Now it should be noted that, as shown in (23), the past tense marker isdisallowed in a CP complement of begin. Thus the proposed relationship between OC and the“fixed tense” phenomenon holds for untensed complements containing an overt tense marker.
(22)

Mari-wa asita
hatarak-u koto-oMari-Top tomorrow work-Prs C-Acc

kinoo{a. *hazimeta, b. kessinsita}.
yesterday {a. *began
b. decided‘Yesterday Mari {began, decided} to work tomorrow.’(23)

Mari-wa {a. hatarak-u, b. *hatarai-ta}
Mari-Top {a. work-Pst b. *work-Pst

koto-oC-Acc

hazimeta.
began‘Mari began to work.’
To summarize:(24)

In Japanese, while untensed and dependent tense complements are compatible with
OC, independent tense complements are not.5

Japanese is different from Balkan languages because as noted in section 2, in these languages,
untensed subjunctives induce OC but dependent tense subjunctives do not. Instead, Japaneseis on a par with Hebrew, where OC is found with 3rd-person future-oriented complements(fn. 2). The main point is that the picture for Japanese looks quite close to the one that Landauputs forth, namely, “the incompatibility of OC with indicatives”. In next section, I ask how it
is possible to express a language like Japanese in the Landau-style calculus of control.

5

It is not the case that dependent tense complements always exclude non-OC complements. The
reader is referred to Fujii (2006, 2008), which investigate the conditions under which NOC dependent
tense complements are obtained.

-103- 103 -

2008

4.

2012









Putting Japanese into the Calculus of Control

4.1.

Overt Tense Inflection

Now we are in a position to ask where the relevant Japanese constructions are placed in
the table that Landau proposes and that Nunes (2008) and BH&N modify. (8) is repeatedbelow as (25).
(25)[T, Agr]• Untensed• uninflected• infinitives, etc.

Obligatory control[+T, Agr][T, +Agr]• Tensed infinitives,• Hebrew 3rd-person• subjunctives,• Brazilian• Portuguese finite• clauses, etc.

• Balkan untensed• subjunctives, etc.

No control[+T, +Agr]• English• indicatives,• Balkan tensed• subjunctives, etc.

The issue is obvious, given that Japanese has no overt agreement morphology. How can weknow whether a given Japanese clause should be specified [+Agr] or [Agr]? The
specification needs to be done independently of whether the clause in question is subject to
OC or not. Namely, if we labeled a clause [+Agr] or [Agr] by looking at whether the clauseis obligatorily controlled or not, then the typology in question would stop predicting anything.
Below I first consider two alternative answers to the question and show that they do not work
very well. I, then, propose that Japanese data lead us to modify the feature [Agr] in a way thatallows the system to refer to overt tense morphology in addition to overt agreement
morphology.
The first alternative can be depicted as in (26). Based on their behaviors with regard to
OC, Japanese untensed and dependent tense complements are placed under “Obligatory
control” while Japanese independent tense complements under “No control”. Untensed
complements bear [T], and dependent tense complements [+T], as we have seen above.
(26)[T, Agr]• Untensed• uninflected• infinitives, etc.

(• Untensed(• ru-complements)

Obligatory control[+T, Agr][T, +Agr]• Tensed infinitives,• Hebrew 3rd-person• subjunctives,• Brazilian• Portuguese finite• clauses, etc.
• Dependent ru- or• ta-complements

No control[+T, +Agr]• Balkan untensed• subjunctives, etc.

• English• indicatives,• Balkan tensed• subjunctives, etc.

(• Untensed(• ru-complements)• Independent• ru/ta-complements

Note that in (26), dependent ru- and ta-complements are specified [Agr] and independent
ru/ta-complements are specified [+Agr]. This is so because the former induce OC and the-104- 104 -The Calculus of Control and Lack of Overt Agreement Morphology (T. Fujii)

latter do not. One serious problem with this alternative is that there is no independent
evidence for these specifications. In order to determine which complements go with whichfeature specifications under this analysis, one would need to know whether or not a given
complement induces OC.
The second alternative is somewhat more interesting. Let us think about what this‘calculus of control’ table will look like if Japanese lacks the feature [±Agr]?6 To answer thisquestion, let us recall how exactly the distribution of OC PRO is determined in a system ofthis sort (section 2). Under Nunes/BH&N’s case-based approach, only a T° with [+T, +Agr]
assigns nominative case. So when combined with this case theory, the result would be thatevery Japanese clause would induce OC (or raising), given that T° would be specified either[T, ] or [+T, ]. This is clearly an unwanted result. Under Landau’s (2004:842) system,on the other hand, R-assignment Rule is formulated in such a way that no [R] value isassigned to the relevant functional head if the head lacks [Agr] or [T]. (Recall that [+R] and[R] are associated with referential DPs and with “anaphoric” DPs like OC PRO,
respectively.) Thus, it follows that neither T° nor C° in Japanese carries [+R] or [R]. It isthus clear enough that this second alternative fails to distinguish between OC and no control
cases.
Having seen how the two alternatives fail, I would like to propose one way of making
the typology work for Japanese. The final alternative poses some questions as well (seebelow) but it, unlike the previous two, provides the right cut between OC and no control. Let
us see how this is so. The key is to allow the feature [Agr] to speak of overt tense morphology
as well as overt agreement morphology. Let us call the feature [Infl], instead of [Agr], for thecurrent purposes. First, the T° of untensed ru-complements [(22)–(23)] and that of dependent
ru- or ta-complements [(10a)–(17a)] both can be considered “deficient” even though verbs of
the ru-form or the ta-form are inflected for tense. This is because in those environments,
either -ru or -ta is blocked. Under the ‘deficiency’ interpretation of “”, the T° of thosecomplements are specified [Infl]. This way, the leftmost two cells in the last row in (27) arefilled in. Next, recall that the T° of independent tense complements has the ability to support
both -ru and -ta. It is not deficient. We take this ability to mean that the ‘independent tense’ T
is specified [+Infl]. Hence complements of verbs like kangaeru ‘think’ [(10b)–(17b)] fallunder [+T, +Infl], as desired, as in (27).7

6

Kuroda (1983) notes this very possibility. He suggests that even tense heads may not have anything
to do with the distribution of PRO. His suggestion is based on the distribution of arbitrary controlled
null subjects. I cannot afford to discuss this intriguing issue here.
7

A somewhat similar idea about finiteness can be found in Huang (1989), which discusses finitenessin Chinese, another language without overt verbal agreement morphology. Huang argues that
finiteness is encoded in terms of potential occurrence of a Tense or Aspectual expression under T° in
Chinese. In his ‘Generalized Control’ theory, though, the relationship between finiteness and OC isless direct than in the framework assumed here.

-105- 105 -

2008

2012









(27)[T, Infl]• Untensed• uninflected• infinitives, etc.

• Untensed• ru-complements

Obligatory control[+T, Infl][T, +Infl]• Tensed infinitives,• Hebrew 3rd-person• subjunctives,• Brazilian• Portuguese finite• clauses, etc.
• Dependent ru- and• ta-complements• Balkan untensed• subjunctives, etc.

No control[+T, +Infl]• English• indicatives,• Balkan tensed• subjunctives, etc.

• Independent• ru/ta-complements

Before closing this subsection, let us note non-trivial questions that are left with noanswer in this paper. I mention two of them here. First, notice that we have not found an
untensed complement that exclusively selects the past tense marker -ta, as can be observed by
the last row under [T, Infl]. The question of why untensed ta-complements do not exist
arises, given that dependent ta-complements nonetheless exist; see (19). Second, as seen in
the column under [T, +Infl], we do not seem to find an untensed complement allowing
ru/ta-alternation. Put another way, it is somewhat hard to imagine an example in which, say,an aspectual verb’s complement allows -ta as well as -ru. These gaps in the paradigms seemto suggest that the ru-form of a verb is default morphology and that the minus value of [T]triggers it. Then the fact that no untensed ta-complements can be found is accounted for.
Notice, however, that under the variant of Landau style typology that I am considering, [T]
and [Infl] are assumed to be independent variables. Then it is never clear why the material
implication “if T° is [T] then T° is [Infl]” should hold in Japanese. In fact, a similar
observation might apply to English: implicatives (e.g. manage), aspectuals (e.g., begin) andmodals (e.g., be able), which select [T], do not seem to allow finite complements. I cannot
afford to explore the issue any further here. I, instead, continue to use [T] and [Infl] as
independent features, keeping to the criterion according to which a T head is specified [Infl]
if and only if either -ru or -ta is blocked.
4.2.

OC Complements Containing No Tense Marker[Infl] can be proved to be useful, independently from the data discussed above, bylooking at OC environments in which neither -ru nor -ta occurs. There are two such classes ofcomplement. One includes the so-called mood constructions, where complements contain amood marker and exclude a tense marker. (28) is an example of decisive mood complement,and (29) an imperative mood complement. They involve OC, and an overt tense marker does
not occur with those mood markers [(28b)/(29b)].8

8See Fujii (2010) and references cited therein.

-106- 106 -The Calculus of Control and Lack of Overt Agreement Morphology (T. Fujii)(28) a. Mari-wa yasai-otabe-yootoMari-Top vegetable-Acc eat-Decisive C

omotta.
thought‘Mary thought she would eat vegetables.’b. * Mari-wa

yasai-otabe-ru-yoo
toeat-Prs-Decisive(29) a. Mari-wa Hiroshi-ni
Mari-Top Hiroshi-dat

omotta.

yasai-otabe-roto itta.
vegetable-Acc eat-Imperative C said

‘Mary told Hiroshi that he should eat vegetables.’b. * Mari-wa

Hiroshi-ni

yasai-otabe-ru-ro
toeat-Prs-Imperativeitta.

The other class of complements lacking overt tense marking includes various complex
predicate constructions.9 (30) exemplifies implicative, aspectual and modal constructions. In
these constructions involving “bare clausal complements”, the head of a complement clause isa bare verbal root and is morpho-phonologically integrated with the matrix verb. Thus, there
is no room for a tense marker to occur in between the first verb and the second verb [(30b)].
(30) a. Mari-wa yasai-otabeMari-Top vegetable-Acc eat{-wasure,{-forget-hazime,-begin-rare} -ta.
-can -Pst‘Mari {forgot, began, was able} to eat vegetables.’b. * Mari-wa

yasai-otabe-ru {-wasure,eat-Prs {-forget-hazime,-begin-rare} -ta.
-can -Pst

OC complements of these two classes thus don’t even have a chance to exhibit ru/ta
alternation. Hence the T° heads of them are all specified [Infl] straightforwardly.
Now let’s look at how their semantic tense behaves. Under the Landau-style typology, it
will not be surprising if these complements are tensed, because they, being [Infl], alreadyqualify to be OC environments. In fact, many of these non-overtly-tense-marked
complements are tensed. The mood complements exhibit a property of dependent tense. A
tense mismatch is allowed both with the embedded decisive [(31)] and the embedded
imperative [(32)]. Many bare complements are untensed [(33)]. Bare dependent tensecomplements, however, exist as well: the complement of the desiderative adjective -tai ‘want’
is clearly irrealis [(34)].

9

See Kageyama (1993), Koizumi (1995), Bobalijk and Wurmbrand (2005, 2007), Kuroda (2003),
among others.

-107- 107 -

2008

(31)

2012







Mari-wa asita
yasai-otabe-yooto kinooomotta.
Mari-Top tomorrow vegetable-Acc eat-Decisive C yesterday thought‘Yesterday Mary thought she will eat vegetables tomorrow.’(32)

Mari-wa
Mari-Top
kinoo
yesterday

Hiroshi-ni asita
yasai-otabe-roHiroshi-dat tomorrow vegetable-Acc eat-Imperative
itta.
said

to
C

‘Yesterday Mary told Hiroshi that he should eat vegetable tomorrow.’(33)* kinooMari-wa asita
yasai-otabe {-wasure, -hazime, -rare} -ta.
yesterday Mari-Top tomorrow vegetable-Acc eat {-forget -begin -can -Pst
‘Yesterday Mari {forgot, began, was able} to eat vegetables tomorrow.’

(34)

kinoo
Mari-wa asita
yasai-otabe-takat-ta.
yesterday Mari-Top tomorrow vegetable-Acc eat-want-Pst‘Yesterday Mari wanted to eat vegetables tomorrow.’

All these data taken together, the table can be updated as in (35):(35)[T, Infl]• Untensed• uninflected• infinitives, etc.

• Untensed• ru-complements,• Untensed bare
• complements

Obligatory control[+T, Infl][T, +Infl]• Tensed infinitives,• Hebrew 3rd-person• subjunctives,• Brazilian Portuguese• finite clauses, etc.
• Dependent ru- and• ta-complements,• Dependent mood• complements,• Dependent bare
• complements• Balkan untensed• subjunctives, etc.

No control[+T, +Infl]• English indicatives,• Balkan tensed• subjunctives, etc.

• Independent• ru/ta-complements

This way, we have successfully put five Japanese OC environments and one non-control
environment in the Landau-Nunes/BH&N style ‘calculus of control’ table.
5.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the present paper has shown (i) that due to the lack of overt agreement
morphology, Japanese poses a potential problem for the calculus of control (Landau 2004,
2006, Nunes 2008, BH&N); and (ii) that the theory can be made to work by assuming that
[Agr] (or [Infl]) is responsible for overt tense morphology as well. Despite the fact that the-108- 108 -The Calculus of Control and Lack of Overt Agreement Morphology (T. Fujii)

exact relationship between semantic tense and overt tense morphology is left to be worked out
in the paper, the modification added here provides a way of dealing with agreement-lesslanguages of the Japanese type in the calculus of control.

References
Abusch, D. (2004) “On the Temporal Composition of Infinitives.” In J. Guéron and J. Lecarme, eds.,
The Syntax of Time, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 27–53.
Bobalijk, J. D. and S. Wurmbrand (2005) “The Domain of Agreement,” Natural Language &Linguistic Theory 23, 809–865.
Bobalijk, J. D. and S. Wurmbrand (2007) “Complex Predicates, Aspect, and Anti-Reconstruction,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16, 27–42.
Boeckx, C., N. Hornstein and J. Nunes (2010) Control as Movement, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Fujii, T. (2006) Some Theoretical Issues in Japanese Control, Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Maryland.
Fujii, T. (2008) “A ‘Non-Obligatory Complement’ Puzzle.” In C. Boeckx and S. Ulutas, eds.,
Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL4), MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 56, Cambridge, Mass., 15–26.
Fujii, T. (2010) “Split control and the Principle of Minimal Distance.” In N. Hornstein and M.
Polinsky, eds., Movement Theory of Control, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 211–244.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1989) “Pro Drop in Chinese: A Generalized Control Approach.” In O. Jaeggli and K.
Safir, eds., The Null Subject Parameter, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 185–214.
Iatridou, S. (1993) “On Nominative Case Assignment and a Few Related Things.” In C. Phillips, ed.,Papers on Case and Agreement II, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19, Cambridge,
Mass., 175–196.
Kageyama, T. (1993) Bunpo to gokeisei [Grammar and word formation], Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo.
Koizumi, M. (1995) Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Kuno, S. (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1983) “What Can Japanese Say about Government and Binding.” In M. Barlow, D. P.
Flickinger and M. T. Wescoat, eds., Proceedings of the Second West Coast Conference inFormal Linguistics, Stanford Linguistics Association, Stanford, 153–164.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (2003) “Complex Predicates and Predicate Raising,” Lingua 113, 447–480.
Landau, I. (2000) Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitive Constructions, Kluwer,
Dordrecht.
Landau, I. (2004) “The Scale of Finiteness and the Calculus of Control,” Natural Language &Linguistic Theory 22, 811–877.
Landau, I. (2006) “Severing the Distribution of PRO from Case,” Syntax 9, 43–60.
Nakau, M. (1973) Sentential Complementation in Japanese, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
Nunes, J. (2008) “Inherent Case as a Licensing Condition for A-Movement: The Case ofHyper-Raising Constructions in Brazilian Portuguese,” Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 7,
83–108.
Ohso, M. (1976) A Study of Zero Pronominalization in Japanese, Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State
University.
Polinsky, M. and E. Potsdam (2006) “Expanding the Scope of Control and Raising,” Syntax 9,
171–192.

-109- 109 -

2008

2012









Saito, M. (1985) Some Asymmetries in Japanese and their Theoretical Implications, Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Sakaguchi, M. (1990) “Control Structures in Japanese.” In H. Hoji ed., Japanese and Korean
Linguistics 1, CSLI, Stanford, 303–317.
Terzi, A. (1992) PRO in Finite Clauses: A Study of the Inflectional Heads of the Balkan Languages,
Ph.D. dissertation, City University of New York.
Uchibori, A. (2000) The Syntax of Subjunctive Complements: Evidence from Japanese, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Ueda, M. (1990) Japanese Phrase Structure and Parameter Setting, Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Varlokosta, S. (1994) Issues on Modern Greek Sentential Complementation, Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Maryland.
Watanabe, A. (1996) “Control and Switch Reference,” ms., Kanda University of Foreign Studies,Japan.

-110- 110 -TOWARDS A THEORY OF SPLIT BINDING: A PRELIMINARY SKETCH *Nao Ishino and Hiroyuki Ura
Kwansei Gakuin University

1.

Introduction

It has been alleged to hold universally valid that a locally-bound reflexive (such as
themselves in English) cannot be bound by more than one antecedent;1 that is, a local anaphor
disallows split-binding (cf. Koster 1984, Lebeaux 1984, and Fiengo and May 1994). For example, the third-person plural non-local pronominal in English (i.e., them) permits
split-binding, as shown by the well-formedness of the examples in (1a) and (1a) below,
whereas its locally-bound counterpart (i.e., themselves) disallows it regardless of whether or
not its purported antecedents co-occur within the minimal tensed-clause including theanaphor, as shown by the ill-formedness of the examples in (1b) and (1b) below:(1)

Englisha. Johnk talked to Billh about themk+h.
a.

Johnk told Billh that the police criticized themk+h.

b. * Johnk told Billh about themselvesk+h.

(Fiengo and May 1994)(Heim 2008)(Lebeaux 1984)b. * Johnk told Billh that the police criticized themselvesk+h.
Likewise, as shown in the examples in (2) and (3) below, the locally-bound reflexives in
Dutch and Chinese (i.e., zichzelf and tamen-ziji) disallow split-binding, as expected:2* Portions of this paper were presented at Tohoku University, Yokohama National University andKwansei Gakuin University. We wish to thank the audience at those meetings for comments andjudgments. Special thanks go to Jun Abe, Tomohiro Fujii, Ken Hiraiwa, Kiyomi Kusumoto, Masatoshi
Koizumi, Roger Martin, Toshifusa Oka, and Yuji Takano, for their helpful suggestions and valuablecomments on materials presented herein. Needless to say, all remaining inadequacies are ours alone.
1

Throughout this paper, the term “local(ly-bound) anaphor/reflexive” is meant for ananaphor/reflexive that must be syntactically bound within the minimal tensed-clause including it.

2

According to our experimental survey (see Ishino 2012), 10 out of the 12 native speakers of Chinese(i.e., 83.3%) disallow the split antecedents for tamen-ziji.

-111-

2008

(2)

2012









Dutch (Koster 1984, Hicks 2009)
Johnk sprak Peterh over zichzelfk/h/*k+h.
‘Johnk told Peterh about himselfk/h/*themselvesk+h.’(3)

Chinese* Zhangsanj gaosu Lisik youguan
Zhangsan tellLisi about

tamen-zijij+k.
SELF(PL)‘Zhangsan told Lisi about SELF(PL).’
Turning our attention to Japanese, we recognize that Japanese has two types of local
anaphor, zibun-(tati)-zisin (‘SELF-(PL)-self’) and Pronoun+zisin (such as kare-zisin ‘himself’or karera-zisin ‘themselves’). As shown in (4), these (plural) reflexive forms in Japanese must
be bound within the minimal tensed clause containing it (cf. Kurata 1986, Nakamura 1989,
Katada 1991, and Aikawa 1993), except where it is used logophorically or emphatically (cf.
Kuno 1972, 1987 and Aikawa 1994).
(4)a.

to ] it-ta.
Johnk-ga [CP Billj-ga zibun-zisin*k/j/kare-zisin*k/j-o hihansi-ta
John-NOM
Bill-NOM SELF-self/himself-ACC
criticize-PST C say-PST‘John said that Bill criticized SELF.’b.

[John to Bill]k-ga [CP keisatuj-ga zibun-tati-zisin*k/j/karera-zisin*k/j-oJohn and Bill-NOM
police-NOM SELF-PL-self/them-self-ACC
hihansi-ta
to ] it-ta.
criticize-PST C say-PST‘John and Bill said that the police criticized SELF(PL).’

If it is universally true that a locally-bound reflexive cannot be split-bound, we are naturally led to the prediction that zibun-tati-zisin and karera-zisin, if not used emphatically/logophorically, cannot have split-antecedents within its local domain, because
zibun-tati-zisin and karera-zisin in Japanese are both a locally-bound anaphor as shown in (4).
Surprisingly enough, however, zibun-tati-zisin is likely to allow local split-binding, as exemplified in (5) below:3

3

The observation that Japanese plural reflexives allow split-binding was reported in Katada (1991),
who contended that karera-zisin (the other form of the Japanese local reflexive) in addition to
zibun-tati-zisin, allows split-binding, the judgment which was also endorsed in Kasai (2000). According to Ishino’s (2012) experimental survey, however, 102 out of the 116 native speakers of Japanese(i.e., 87.9%) allow the split antecedents for zibun-tati-zisin, but 41 out of the 116 Japanese (i.e.,
35.3%) accept the split antecedence of pronouns+zisin (karera-zisin/kanojo-tati-zisin). Later we will
return directly to the comparison between zibun-tati-zisin and karera-zisin with respect to split-binding.
Incidentally, Kasai (2000) provided ample data which show that the Korean counterpart ofzibun-tati-zisin also allows local split-binding.

-112- 112 -Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)

(5)

a.

Johnk-ga
Billj-ni zibun-tati-zisink+j-nituite
John-NOM Bill-DAT SELF-PL-selfaboutkatar-ta.
tell-PST‘Johnk told Billj about SELFk+j.’b.

Lasnikj-ni zibun-tati-zisink+j-o
Chomskyk-ga
Chomsky-NOM Lasnik-DAT SELF-PL-self-ACC

hihans-ase-ta.
criticize-CAUS-PST‘Chomskyk made Lasnikj criticize SELFk+j.’
Given the fact in (5), we draw the conclusion that a local reflexive allows split-binding inJapanese (and Korean). On the other hand, it has been reported, in the literature, that the
split-binding for a locally-bound reflexive is also disallowed in French (Pica 1984), Italian(Napoli 1976), Greek (Chiou 2007), Tamil (Selvanathan 2009), Icelandic (Everaert 1986),
Arabic (Tsukanova and Nikolaeva 2008), Hebrew (Doron 1983), and Quechua (van de Kerke1991); therefore, we have come to the conclusion that Japanese and Korean (Katada 1991,
Kasai 2000) are the only languages in which we have detected that split-binding is allowed fora local reflexive.
Now our issue is to explain the above cross-linguistic difference in terms of split-binding
for a local reflexive. Notice here that neither Faltz’s (1977) typological classification in termsof morphological complexity nor Burzio’s (1991) typological classification in terms of-defectiveness can work for the purpose of explaining the above cross-linguistic variation.
Drawing a comparison between Dutch and Japanese, we detect that Dutch is parallel to Japanese in that zichzelf in Dutch and zibun(-tati)-zisin in Japanese are both -defective (zichzelf
lacks its gender- and number-features, and zibun(-tati)-zisin lacks its person- and gender-features) and they are both morphologically complex; that is to say, the locally-boundplural reflexives in Dutch and Japanese are equal with respect to their morphological complexity and -defectiveness. It is important, nonetheless, to recall that Japanese, but not
Dutch, allows split-binding for a local reflexive, as noted above.
Two theoretically significant issues to be addressed here are: (i) What syntactic mechanism makes it possible for a locally-bound reflexive in Japanese (and Korean) to be
split-bound?; and (ii) Why is it that only Japanese (and Korean) allow split-binding thoughmany other languages disallow it despite the fact that some of the languages which disallow
split binding have a reflexive whose binding-theoretic properties are very similar to the onesin Japanese (and Korean).
Hence, the purpose of this paper is twofold: The first purpose is to attest our empiricalobservation that a locally-bound reflexive in Japanese can be syntactically split-bound within
its local domain. In §2, we will first classify the locally split-bound reflexives into a syntactically bound anaphor or a contextually emphatic logophor. Then we will also explicate the locality for the syntactically split-bound reflexives in §3. The second purpose is to explain theparametric difference between the languages allowing local split-binding and the ones disallowing it. In §4, we will elucidate the syntactic mechanism that enables a local anaphor to be-113- 113 -

2008

2012







bound by more than one antecedent. In §5, we will clarify under what conditions local
split-binding is possible. Significant consequences and theoretical implications of our proposals will be discussed in §6. Finally, §7 will conclude the present paper.
2.

Split Antecedence: Binding or Coreference?

Here, we are aiming at demonstrating that, despite the similarities in terms of their morphological complexity and their locality concerning syntactic binding, zibun-tati-zisin but not
karera-zisin can be syntactically bound by split antecedents within its local domain. Before
clarifying a distinction between them, we have to make a clear distinction between a syntactically bound anaphor and a (contextually emphatic) logophor that gets its referential antecedent through non-syntactic coreference (cf. Reinhart 1983).
First, let us summarize the difference between non-local/local anaphors in terms of their
split-antecedence. A non-local anaphor (such as ordinary pronouns in English and Dutch) can
be bound by more than one antecedent, as shown in (7) below:
(7)

a.
OK

English (Seely 1993, Berman and Hestvik 1997)
Johnk said [ that Billh hated themk+h ].

OK

Dutch (Koster 1986)
Johnk zei [ dat Peterh henk+h haat ].

b.

‘Johnk said that Peterh hates themk+h.’
On the other hand, a locally-bound plural reflexive such as themselves in English and zichzelf
in Dutch, which exhibits clause-boundedness as its binding locality, cannot permit
split-binding even when the purported antecedents occur within the minimal tensed clauseincluding it, as noted in the previous section.
Lebeaux (1984) and Fiengo and May (1994) have tried to explain the ill-formedness of
split-binding in English by attributing it to a violation of the traditional binding theory ofChomsky (1981), according to which no locally-bound anaphor can be bound by more than
one antecedent. Then, it may come as a surprise to see that a local anaphor in Japanese allows
split-binding, as shown in (5) above and in (8) below:(8)a.

Maryk-ga Janeh-kara zibun-tati-zisink+h/??kanojo-tati-zisink+h-nituite kii-ta.
Mary-NOM Jane-from SELF-PL-self / them-PL-self
about hear-PST‘Maryk heard from Janeh about SELFk+h.’b.

Johnk-ga Billj-ni zibun-tati-zisink+h/?*karera-zisink+h-ni kibisikus-ase-ta.
John-NOM Bill-DAT SELF-PL-self / them-self-DAT
do bitter-CAUS-PST‘Johnk made Billh get tough with SELFk+h.’-114- 114 -Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)

Seemingly, it looks like zibun-tati, the non-local plural anaphor in Japanese, also allows split
antecedents (see Katada 1991 and Kasai 2000).
(9)a.

Billj-ni
Johnk-ga
John-NOM Bill-DAT

zibun-tatik+j-nituite katar-ta.
SELF-PL about tell-PST‘Johnk told Billj about SELFk+j.’b.

Maryk-gaMary-NOM

Janej-kara zibun-tatik+j-nituite kii-ta.
Jane-from SELF-PL about hear-PST‘Maryk heard from Janej about SELFk+j.’c.

Lasnikj-ni zibun-tatik+j-o
Chomskyk-ga
Chomsky-NOM Lasnik-DAT SELF-PL-ACC

hihans-ase-ta.
criticize-CAUS-PST‘Chomskyk made Lasnikj criticize SELFk+j.’
Abe (1992) argues, however, that the split binding illustrated by the examples in (9) is not a
genuine one, but it is obtained as a special case of the group reading for zibun-tati (cf. Kawasaki 1989).4 That is, the anaphoric interpretation demonstrated in (9) is achieved not throughsyntactic binding but through coreference in discourse.
Then, for the purpose of attesting our claim that zibun-tati-zisin allows split-binding insyntax, it is very significant to clarify a fine distinction between a syntactically bound anaphor
and a contextually emphatic logophor in discourse. To detect it, we adopt Hoji’s (2003) proposal that Comparative Ellipsis with Case-marker in Japanese is parallel to VP Deletion in
English: the sloppy identity reading cannot be obtained unless an anaphoric (i.e., syntacticallybound) element is involved in each of these constructions. Consider the following English
examples:(10)a.

Johnk’s friends will vote for Johnk, and I want Billj’s friends to Ø, too.
Ø = ‘vote for Johnk’, Ø  ‘vote for Billk’b.

(strict reading only)

Maryk will accept our present to herk, and we want Janej to Ø, too.
Ø = ‘accept our present to Maryk’, Ø = ‘accept our present to Janek’(strict & sloppy)c.

Johnk will vote for himselfk, and I want Billj to Ø, too.
Ø  ‘vote for Johnk’, Ø = ‘vote for Billk’(sloppy reading only)(10c) has only a sloppy interpretation (that is, ‘John will vote for John and I want Bill to votefor Bill.’) and it can be safely said that a syntactically bound element himself is involved in4

See Appendix II for some discussion on zibun-tati, which we will ignore theretofore.

-115- 115 -

2008

2012







the elliptic part. On the other hand, (10b) has both the sloppy reading and the strict reading.
According to Reinhart (1983) and Heim and Kratzer (1998), only a syntactically bound anaphor in the elliptic part has a sloppy interpretation, but a referential pronominal can have astrict interpretation by way of coreference in discourse. Thus, the sloppy reading is not available in (10a), where no syntactic binding is involved.
The examples in (11) below show the comparative ellipsis with Case-marker in Japanese:
(11)

a.

Yakunin-ga [ Toodaik-no
officer-NOM Tokyo U.-GEN
gakusei-ni
Kyoodaij-no
students-DAT Kyoto U.-GEN

gakusei-ni Ø yorimo sakini ], Kyoodaij-no
students-DAT
than earlier
Kyoto U.-GEN
kyooju-ohihans-ase-ta.
professor-ACC criticize-CAUS-PSTØ = ‘criticized a professor at Kyoto U.j’, Ø  ‘criticized a professor at Tokyo U.k’
(strict only)b.

gakusei-ni Ø yorimo sakini ],Yakunin-ga [ Toodaik-no
officer-NOM Tokyo U.-GEN students-DAT
than earlier
gakusei-ni
sokoj-no kyooju-ohihans-ase-ta.
students-DAT it-GEN
professor-ACC criticize-CAUS-PST

Kyoodaij-no
Kyoto U.-GENØ = ‘criticized a professor at Kyoto U.j’, Ø = ‘criticized a professor at Tokyo U.k’
(strict & sloppy)c.

gakusei-ni Ø yorimo sakini ],Yakunin-ga [ Toodaik-no
officer-NOM Tokyo U.-GEN students-DAT
than earlier
gakusei-ni
mizukaraj-o hihans-ase-ta.
students-DAT SELF-ACC criticize-CAUS-PST

Kyoodaij-no
Kyoto U.-GENØ  ‘criticized the student at Kyoto U.j’, Ø = ‘criticized the student at Tokyo U.k’
(sloppy only)
The fact shown in (11) indicates that, under the Japanese construction of Comparative Ellipsis
with Case-marker, a syntactically free R-expression yields only the strict reading, a locally
free pronominal yields both the strict reading and the sloppy reading, and a locally-bound reflexive yields only the sloppy reading. Accordingly, this fact conforms to Hoji’s (2003) claim.
Hoji (2003) therefore proposes to utilize Comparative Ellipsis with Case-marker for the purpose of detecting whether a given anaphoric expression is syntactically bound or contextually
coreferential.
Now, we are applying Hoji’s (2003) test to the following examples:-116- 116 -Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)

(12)

a.

Iinkai-ga[ Johnk-ni Ø yorimo sakini ], Billj-ni
committee-NOM John-DAT
than earlier
Bill-DAT
hihans-ase-ta.
criticize-CAUS-PSTØ = ‘criticized Billj’, Ø  ‘criticized Johnk’b.

(strict only)

Iinkai-ga[ Johnk-ni Ø yorimo sakini ], Billj-ni zibunj/zibun-zisinj-ocommittee-NOM John-DAT
than earlier
Bill-DAT SELF/SELF-self-ACC
hihans-ase-ta.
criticize-CAUS-PSTØ = ‘criticized Billj’, Ø = ‘criticized Johnk’c.

kare-zisinj-o
him-self-ACC(strict & sloppy)

Iinkai-ga[ Johnk-ni Ø yorimo sakini ], Billj-ni mizukaraj/onorej-o
committee-NOM John-DAT
than earlier
Bill-DAT SELF/SELF-ACC
hihans-ase-ta.
criticize-CAUS-PSTØ  ‘criticized Billj’, Ø = ‘criticized Johnk’(sloppy only)

As shown in (12a), it can be safely said that kare-zisin allows only the strict reading because
kare cannot be a bound variable (Hoji 1991, Noguchi 1997). In passing, from the fact that(12c) has the sloppy reading alone, we can conclude that mizukara (‘SELF’) and onore(‘SELF’), both of which are simplex reflexive forms in Japanese, are a genuine locally-boundreflexive in Japanese (see Ishino and Ura 2011 for relevant discussion (cf., also, Kitagawa
1986)).
We will next examine whether zibun-tati-zisin and karera-zisin, both of which Katada(1991) has alleged to allow the split binding, allow the sloppy reading or not under theconstruction of Comparative Ellipsis with Case-marker. Pronouns+zisin, such as karera/
kanojotati-zisin ‘themselves’ can have the strict reading alone, as shown in the examples in(13) below:
(13)

a.

Johnk-ga [ Billj-ni Ø yorimo sakini ], Tomg-ni karera-zisink+g-nituite
John-NOM Bill-DAT
than earlier
Tom-DAT them-selfaboutkatar-ta.
tell-PSTØ = ‘told SELF*k+j(+else㱿g)/k+g(+else)/k+g+j(+else).’-117- 117 -(strict only)

2008

b.

2012







Maryk-ga [ Janej-kara Ø yorimo sakini ], Sueg-kara kanojo-tatik+g-zisin-nituite
Mary-NOM Jane-from than earlier
Sue-from them-PL-selfabout
kii-ta.
hear-PSTØ = ‘heard about SELF*k+j(+else㱿g)/k+g(+else)/k+g+j(+else).’

c.



(strict only)

Chomskyk-ga [ Lasnikj-ni Ø yorimo sakini ], Halleg-ni karera-zisink+g-o
Chomsky-NOM Lasnik-DAT
than earlier
Halle-DAT them-self-ACC
hihans-ase-ta.
criticize-CAUS-PSTØ = ‘criticize SELF*k+j(+else㱿g)/k+g(+else)/k+g+j(+else).’(strict only)

In (13a), the index k+g(+else) indicates the interpretation ‘Before John told Tom about Johnand Tom, John told Bill about John and Tom’, the interpretation of which corresponds to thestrict reading, and the index k+j(+else㱿g) indicates the interpretation ‘Before John told Tom
about John and Tom, John told Bill about John and Bill’, the interpretation of which corresponds to the sloppy reading. It is important to note that the sloppy reading in (13a) is missing. In terms of the index k+g+j(+else), the index g is included when the group reading isavailable. The facts shown in (13a,b,c) show that there is no sloppy reading in the examples in(13). Therefore, we can say that karera/kanojotati-zisin has only the strict reading, but not thesloppy reading. The conclusion we have reached here is that pronouns+zisin in Japanese does
not allow the split binding in syntax, though it seemingly looks as if it has its split antecedents, which takes only by way of coreference in discourse.
Zibun-tati-zisin, on the other hand, indeed allows the sloppy reading, as shown in theexamples in (14) below:
(14)

a.

Johnk-ga [ Billj-ni Ø yorimo sakini], Tomg-ni zibun-tati-zisink+g-nituite
John-NOM Bill-DAT
than earlier
Tom-DAT SELF-PL-selfaboutkatar-ta.
tell-PSTØ = ‘told SELFk+j/k+g/k+g+j(+else).’b.

(strict & sloppy)

Maryk-ga [ Janej-kara Ø yorimo sakini ], Sueg-kara
Mary-NOM Jane-from than earlier
Sue-from
kii-ta.
hear-PSTØ = ‘heard about SELFk+j/k+g/k+g+j(+else).’-118- 118 -zibun-tati-zisink+g-nituite
SELF-PL-self
about(strict & sloppy)

Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)c.

Chomskyk-ga [ Lasnikj-ni Ø yorimo sakini ], Halleg-ni zibun-tati-zisink+g-o
Chomsky-NOM Lasnik-DAT than earlier
Halle-DAT SELF-PL-self-ACC
hihans-ase-ta.
criticize-CAUS-PSTØ = ‘criticize SELFk+j/k+g/k+g+j(+else).’(strict & sloppy)

The index k+j in (14a) indicates the interpretation ‘Before John told Tom about John andTom, John told Bill about John and Bill’, the interpretation of which corresponds to the sloppy reading. The fact that zibun-tati-zisin has the strict reading has no significance for our discussion here. What we should notice here is that zibun-tati-zisin yields the sloppy reading under the construction of Comparative Ellipsis with Case-marker. From the facts in (14), we
draw the conclusion that zibun-tati-zisin can be syntactically split-bound. Let us, again, notice
the fact that the sloppy identity reading is missing in (13) though it is readily available in (14);as a consequence, pronoun(PL)+zisin cannot be syntactically split-bound, contrary to the claim
made by Katada (1991) and Kasai (2000).
In addition, the following examples including VP-deletions show that karera-zisin in(15a) cannot allow the sloppy reading, but zibun-tati-zisin in (15b) can. These facts also lendfurther support to our claim that zibun-tati-zisin can be syntactically split-bound:
(15)

a.

kara ],[ Chomskyk-ga Lasnikj-ni [VP karera-zisink+j-o hihans]-ase-ta
Chomsky-NOM Lasnik-DAT them-self-ACC
criticize-CAUS-PST because
Sagg-mo Pollardp-ni Ø s-ase-ta.
Sag-also Pollard-DAT
did-CAUS-PSTØ = ‘criticized Chomskyk and Lasnikj’, Ø  ‘criticized Sagg and Pollardp’(strict only)b.

kara ],[ Chomskyk-ga Lasnikj-ni [VP zibunn-tati-zisink+j-o hihans]-ase-ta
Chomsky-NOM Lasnik-DAT SELF-PL-self-ACC criticize-CAUS-PST because
Sagg-mo Pollardp-ni Ø s-ase-ta.
Sag-also Pollard-DAT
did-CAUS-PSTØ = ‘criticized Chomskyk and Lasnikj’, Ø = ‘criticized Sagg and Pollardp’(strict & sloppy)

Another piece of supporting evidence can be seen in the examples in (16) below:(16)

a. OKDaremok-ga darekah-ni zibun-tati-zisink+h-nituite katar-ta.
‘For every x, there was some y such that x told y about x and y, (and, x told yabout the group including x and y.)-119- 119 -

2008

2012







b. OK Daremok-ga darekah-ni zibun-tati-zisink+h-nokoto-o soodansi-ta.
‘For every x, there was some y such that x conferred with y about x and y, (and x
conferred with y about the group including x and y.)’According to Reinhart (1983) and Heim and Kratzer (1998), the bound variable reading of ananaphor manifests itself iff it is syntactically bound. The well-formedness of the examples in(16) also shows that zibun-tati-zisin can be syntactically split-bound.
To sum up, we have reached the conclusion that, among the locally-bound plural anaphora in Japanese, zibun-tati-zisin alone can be syntactically bound by split antecedents andpronoun(PL)+zisin takes its split antecedents only through coreference in discourse.5
3.

Locality of Split Binding

In this section, we will demonstrate that the syntactic mechanism for the split binding insyntax obeys a locality condition.
First, as shown in (17) below, when both of the antecedents of zibun-tati-zisin are locatedwithin the clause containing zibun-tati-zisin, the split binding is allowed:
(17)

a.

Tomg-ni
Johnk-ga
John-NOM Tom-DAT

zibun-tati-zisink+g-nituite
SELF-PL-selfaboutkatar-ta.
tell-PST‘Johnk told Tomg about SELFk+g.’b.

Johnk-ga [ Billj-ni Ø yorimo sakini], Tomg-ni zibun-tati-zisink+g-nituite
John-NOM Bill-DAT
than earlier
Tom-DAT SELF-PL-selfaboutkatar-ta.
tell-PSTØ = ‘told about SELFk+j(-g).’(sloppy OK)

Next, as shown in (18) below, when one of the antecedents of zibun-tati-zisin is locatedwithin the tensed-clause containing zibun-tati-zisin and the other is on the outside of thetensed-clause, the split binding is disallowed:
(18)

a.

Kannonbosatu-wa Gokuuk-ni [ Gojoog-ga zibun-tati-zisink+g-ni situboosi-ta
Kuan Yin-TOP
Gokuu-DAT Gojoo-NOM SELF-PL-self-DAT
despair-PST
to ] hookokus-ase-ta.
Creport-CAUS-PST‘Kaun Yin made Gokuuk report [ that Gojoog despaired of themk+g ].’5

See Appendix III for split binding in English.

-120- 120 -Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)b.

Kannonbosatu-wa [ Gokuuk-ni Ø yorimo sakini ], Hakkaij-ni [ Gojoog-ga
Kuan Yin-TOP
Gokuu-DAT
than earlier
Hakkai-DAT Gojoo-NOM
zibun-tati-zisinj+g-ni situboosi-ta to ] hookoku-sase-ta.
SELF-PL-self-DAT
despair-PST C
report-CAUS-PSTØ  ‘report that Gojoog despaired of SELFk+g(-j).’(sloppy NG)Ø = ‘report that Gojoog despaired of SELFj+g.’(strict OK)

In (18b), the sloppy reading is missing. One might conjecture that the split binding indicatedwith the index displayed in (18a) is acceptable, but it should be noted again that the lack of
the sloppy reading there implies that zibun-tati-zisin in this example is not syntactically boundby the purported split antecedents.
Finally, when both of the antecedents of zibun-tati-zisin are on the outside of thetensed-clause containing zibun-tati-zisin, the split binding is never allowed. Take a look at thefollowing example:
(19)

a.

Sanzoog-ga Gokuuk-ni [ mamono-ga
Sanzoo-NOM Gokuu-DAT goblin-NOM
nir-tei-ta
to ] tuge-ta.
resemble-PROG-PST C
tell-PST

zibun-tati-zisink+g-ni
SELF-PL-self-DAT‘Sanzoog told Gokuuk [ that goblins resembled themk+g ].’b.

Sanzoog-ga [ Gokuuk-ni Ø yorimo sakini ], Hakkaij-ni [ mamono-ga
Sanzoo-NOM Gokuu-DAT
than earlier
Hakkai-DAT goblin-NOM
zibun-tati-zisink+g-ni nir-tei-ta
to ] tuge-ta.
SELF-PL-self-DAT
resemble-PROG-PST C
tell-PSTØ  ‘told that goblins resembled SELFk+g(-j).’(sloppy NG)Ø = ‘told that goblins resembled SELFj+g.’ (strict OK)

As indicated by the fact that the strict reading of zibun-tati-zisin is missing in (19b), the split
binding of zibun-tati-zisin in (19a) is obtained not through the syntactic binding, but throughthe coreference in discourse; as a consequence, the syntactic split binding is impossible whenboth of the antecedents of zibun-tati-zisin are on the outside of the tensed-clause containing
zibun-tati-zisin.
To recapitulate, the observations carried out in this section reveal that no tensed-clauseboundary can intervene between zibun-tati-zisin and any one of its split antecedents.
4.

Explanation of Split Binding

In this section, we will try to explicate the syntactic mechanism of split binding. In theprevious sections, we observed that zibun-tati-zisin, one of the locally-bound reflexive forms
in Japanese tolerates the split antecedence, the observation of which necessitates reformula--121- 121 -

2008

2012







tion of any existing theory of (Japanese binding), no matter how it might have been formalized. Abandoning the traditional binding theory owing to its aforementioned empirical insufficiency, we propose to supplant it with a new theory of binding, according to which thebinding relation between an anaphoric expression and its antecedent is materialized not
through c-command plus referential coindexing (i.e., through the binding relation formulated
under the traditional Binding Theory in Chomsky (1981)) but through Agree, the approach
which has recently been developed and defended by not a few researchers (Heinat 2008, Reuland 2008, Quicoli 2008, Lee-Schoenfeld 2008, Hicks 2009, inter alia).
4.1.

Assumptions and Proposals

In recent studies on syntax of reflexive binding, it has often been proposed (see Reuland
2008, Uriagereka and Gallego 2006, and Gallego 2010) that a -defective reflexive must be-complete at LF (cf., also, Bouchard 1984, Burzio 1991), where every element must be
properly interpreted (Chomsky 1995). Consequently, the syntactic binding of (-defective)reflexives can be recast within the Agree theory under the current minimalist Probe-Goalframework (Chomsky 2001 and subsequent work).
Following, basically, the theory of Binding through Agree proposed in Uriagereka andGallego (2006) and Gallego (2010), we will make the following four assumptions: (I) A-defective reflexive must have its -features valued by a Probe with the whole -featureamalgam in order to become -complete; (II)  binds  if they are both Goals of a single relevant Probe; otherwise,  and  are obviative; and (III) we particularly hypothesize that Twith the whole -feature amalgam supplies -features through Agree to a -defective anaphor
at a post-Spell-Out level (because the referential interpretation is supposed to take place atLF); that is, T with the whole -feature amalgam serves as a Probe for a -defective anaphor;and (IV) the -completeness for anaphoric expressions is a requirement for interpretation (cf.
Bouchard 1984 and Burzio 1991).
It is important to note, here, that these assumptions demand that the feature-binding
through Agree should take place at a post-Spell-Out (i.e., at LF); as a consequence, a PHASE,
being a cycle for Spell-Out, never bears on the locality of Binding through Agree under ourassumptions.
4.2.

Binding by a Single Antecedent

With the abovementioned assumptions in mind, let us take consideration of an ordinary
binding by a single antecedent. Look at the following Japanese example, which includes
zibun-zisin at the object position of a tensed clause and the subject DP of the clause:
(20)

a.

Johnk-gazibun-zisink-okirat-tei-ta(koto).
John-NOM SELF-self-ACC hate-PROG-PST (fact)‘(the fact that) Johnk hated himselfk’-122- 122 -Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)b.
[TP John-gac.
[TP Johnk-ga

OK[vP zibun-zisin-oV ]T[] ]OK[vP zibun-zisink-o V ] T[] ]OKT[+tense] agrees with the subject DP to provide it with the nominative Case before Spell-Out,
as illustrated in (20b). Then, T[+tense] with the whole -feature amalgam can agree with a-defective reflexive in order to supply it with -features at LF, as illustrated in (20c). Because zibun-(tati-)zisin lacks the specifications for person and gender, it must be suppliedwith -features by T[+tense] through Agree. As a consequence, Agree has established thebinding relation between the subject and the reflexive through the mediation of T.
Next, we will show that the clause-boundedness of zibun-zisin, which we noted in §1,also follows directly. Consider the structure in (21) below:(21)[TP DP-ga ..... [CP [TP DP-ga[vP zibun-zisin-o V ]T[] ]

C]

T[] ]

T[+tense] in the embedded CP has the whole -feature amalgam and T in the embedded CP is
the nearest Probe for zibun-zisin; as a consequence, Agree between the matrix T andzibun-zisin is prohibited, as (22a) below illustrates, and only the agree relation between the
DP at the subject position of the embedded CP and zibun-zisin can hold, as illustrated in (22b)
below:(22)

a. [TP DP-ga ..... [CP [TP DP-ga

b. [TP DPk-ga ..... [CP [TP DPh-ga

4.3.

[vP zibun-zisin-o V ] T[] ]OK-+ OK[vP zibun-zisin*k/h-o
OK

V

]

C]

T[] ]

T[] ]

C]

T[] ]

Split Binding

Here, let us assume that T[+tense] in Japanese (and Korean) is capable of agreeing withmore than one Goal other than its canonical subject DP (see Ura 1996 and Hiraiwa 2005 formuch relevant discussion). Given this assumption, we will explicate the syntactic mechanismof the split binding through Agree. First, let us take a look at the example in (23a) below:
(23)

a.

Billh-ni
Johnk-ga
John-NOM Bill-DAT

zibun-tati-zisink+h-nituite
SELF-PL-selfabout‘Johnk told Billh about themselvesk+h.’-123- 123 -katar-ta.
tell-PST

2008

2012

b. [TP John-ga

c. [TP Johnk-ga



OK[vP Bill-ni zibun-tati-zisin-nituite V
OK

]

OK
[vP Billh-ni zibun-tati-zisink+h-nituite V
OK
OK



T[] ]]

T[] ]

As illustrated in (23b), T agrees with the subject DP to provide it with the nominative Case.
Then, in (23c), T[+tense] with the whole -feature amalgam agrees with zibun-tati-zisin,which is a -defective reflexive, to supply it with -features; moreover, (23c) illustrates that T
can agree optionally with another DP when the DP is within the same clause thanks to T’s
multiple checking ability in Japanese (and Korean). If this situation arises, T with the whole-feature amalgam mediates three Goals; namely, the subject DP, the -defective reflexive,
and the non-subject DP within its clause, as illustrated in (23c). Under our theory of binding,this gives rise to a situation where the -defective reflexive is syntactically bound by the subject DP and another DP within the clause; whence, split-binding emerges, as required.6
This reasoning leads us to the prediction that split-binding is not materialized when either or both of the split antecedents is/are not within the same clause in which the reflexive isembedded, as shown in (24) and (25) below:
(24)

a.

Kannonbosatu-wa [ Gokuuk-ni Ø yorimo sakini ], Hakkaij-ni [ Gojoog-ga
Kuan Yin-TOP
Gokuu-DAT
than earlier
Hakkai-DAT Gojoo-NOM
zibun-tati-zisinj+g-ni situboosi-ta to ] hookoku-sase-ta.
SELF-PL-self-DAT
despair-PST C
report-CAUS-PSTØ  ‘report that Gojoog despaired of SELFk+g(-j).’ (sloppy NG)Ø = ‘report that Gojoog despaired of SELFj+g.’(strict OK)

6

It is highly probable that D also has the -feature specifications, resulting in the Probe for a-defective reflexive to supply it with the -features. As a consequence, the split binding can be allowed within a DP containing zibun-tati-zisin. For example, look at (i), where the plural reflexive allows split antecedents in syntax, as is confirmed by the fact that it is interpreted as a variable bound by
one of its antecedents:(i) OK kaku iink-no
iintyouh-nitaisuru
zibun-tazi-zisink+h-nitaisuru
eachcommitteeman-GEN committee chair-towards SELF-PL-self-against
kokuhatsu
accusation‘Each committeeman’s accusation against SELF towards the chair’Given that D in Japanese can have a multiple checking ability with some -feature specification, it isnatural that the split binding within a DP is allowed in Japanese. We will leave it to future research topursue this issue further, however.

-124- 124 -Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)b.

Sanzoog-ga [ Gokuuk-ni Ø yorimo sakini ], Hakkaij-ni [ mamono-ga
Sanzoo-NOM Gokuu-DAT
than earlier
Hakkai-DAT goblin-NOM
to ] tuge-ta.
zibun-tati-zisink+g-ni nir-tei-ta
SELF-PL-self-DAT
resemble-PROG-PST C
tell-PSTØ  ‘told that goblins resembled SELFk+g(-j).’ (sloppy NG)Ø = ‘told that goblins resembled SELFj+g.’ (strict OK)(25)

a. *Daremok-ga sensei-ni [darekah-ga zibun-tati-zisink+h-o hihansi-ta to ] it-ta.
 ‘For every x, there is some y such that x told the teacher that y criticized x and y.’b. * Daremok-ga darekah-ni [sensei-ga zibun-tati-zisink+h-o hihansi-ta to ] it-ta.
 ‘For every x, there is some y such that x told y that the teacher criticized x and y.’

In (25), the tensed-clause boundary intervenes between zibun-tati-zisin and one/both of its
antecedents. (25a) is unacceptable when the reflexive is construed as a variable bound by the
split antecedents. This lends strong support to our proposed theory of Binding through Agree.
It should be noticed that, under our theory of Binding through Agree, split-binding insyntax emerges iff T optionally agrees with some elements other than the subject DP withwhich T agrees for the purpose of providing nominative Case to it. Look at (26) below:
(26)

a.

zibun-tati-zisink+h/k+h+j-nituite katar-ta.
[ Johnk to Billh ]-ga Maryj-ni[ John and Bill-NOM Mary-DAT SELF-PL-self
about tell-PST‘Johnk and Billh told Maryj about themselvesk+h/k+h+j.’b. [TP [ Johnk to Billh ]-ga

c. [TP [ Johnk to Billh ]-ga

OK
[vP Maryj-ni zibun-tati-zisink+h-nituite
OK
OK[vP Maryj-ni zibun-tati-zisink+h+j-nituite
OK
OK

V

V

]

T[] ]]

T[] ](26a) has two interpretations because of T’s optional feature checking. When T does not execute an optional agreement with anything other than the conjoined plural subject, the ordinary
binding between zibun-tati-zisin and the conjoined subject is established, as illustrated in(26b). If, on the other hand, T happens to execute an optional agreement with Mary in addition to its obligatory agreement with the conjoined plural subject, then the split binding is
successfully established as shown in (26c).

-125- 125 -

2008

4.4.

2012









Interim Summary

In this section, we have argued (i) that zibun(-tati)-zisin is a -defective anaphor, whichneeds to be licensed through Agree by T with the -complete specifications, (ii) that thebinding relation between zibun(tati)-zisin and its antecedent(s) is mediated through Agree byT, and (iii) that, when the situation occurs in which T may agree with some element other thanits subject DP, the split binding of zibun-tati-zisin emerges.
5.

Split Binding and Its Parametric Variation

Up through the previous sections, we have demonstrated how the theory of Binding
through Agree enables us to explain the syntactic mechanism of the split binding for a locally-bound reflexive. To elucidate the cross-linguistic variation concerning split binding is ourremaining issue in this paper. In this section, we will thus attempt to deduce the contrast between the languages allowing the split binding for a locally-bound reflexive and the ones disallowing it from some independently motivated assumptions concerning parametric differences in human language. Recall that we observed in §1 that the split-binding for a locally-bound reflexive is disallowed in English, Dutch, Chinese, French, Italian, Greek, Tamil,
Icelandic, Arabic, Hebrew, and Quechua, whereas, as we extensively argued, Japanese (andKorean) allow the split binding for a locally-bound reflexive.
In §4, we demonstrated (A) that a binding relation through Agree is essential for the split
binding; and (B) that the split binding for a locally-bound reflexive can be materialized only if
T has the ability of multiple checking. Because only -defective reflexives need to be boundby way of binding through Agree, the fact (A) means that the split binding for a locally-boundreflexive in a language L is materialized only if the locally-bound reflexive in L is a
-defective anaphor. Thus, we have reached the following conclusion:(27)

Split-binding for a locally-bound reflexive is materialized in a language L iff both (i)and (ii) hold:(i) the locally-bound reflexive in L is a -defective anaphor;(ii) T in L is capable of multiple feature checking.

Indeed, the conditions stated in (27) are very pertinent to the aforementioned observation
concerning the cross-linguistic variation concerning split binding: Notice that English,
French, Italian and Modern Greek disallow the split binding because they deviate from bothof (i) and (ii); for, the reflexives in those languages have a full-fledged specification of the-features and T does not allow multiple checking in those languages. On the other hand,
Dutch, Tamil, Icelandic and Chinese have a locally-bound -defective reflexive, they disallow
the split binding for it; for, they deviate from condition (ii); that is, they do not allow T tocheck more than one nominative. In Arabic and Quechua, in contrast, T has a multiple checking ability because they allow the multiple nominative construction (see Ura 1994, 1996);
nevertheless, they disallow the split binding for a locally-bound reflexive; for, they deviate-126- 126 -Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)

from the condition (i); that is, their locally-bound reflexives have a complete specification of
their -features. Finally, it is because Japanese (and Korean) comply with both (i) and (ii) thatthey allow the split binding for a locally-bound reflexive. In (28) below, we summarize theparametric variation of the split binding for a locally-bound reflexive:(28)

Parametric variation concerning the split binding for a locally-bound reflexive
Split binding is prohibited:a. English, French, Italian, and Modern Greek: deviant both from (i) and from (ii)(cf. French (Pica 1984); Italian (Napoli 1976); Modern Greek (Chiou 2007))b. Dutch, Tamil, Icelandic, and Chinese: deviant from (ii)(cf. Dutch (Koster 1984); Tamil (Selvanathan 2009);
Icelandic (Everaert 1986))
c. Arabic, Hebrew, and Quechua: deviant from (i)(cf. Arabic (Tsukanova and Nikolaeva 2008); Hebrew (Doron 1983);
Quechua (van de Kerke 1991))
Split binding is permitted:
d. Japanese and Korean (& Kumyk): compliant both with (i) and with (ii)(cf. Korean (Kasai 2000))In this section we argued that our theory of split binding is adequate enough to explain the
cross-linguistically detected parametric difference in terms of split binding.
6.

Consequences and Theoretical Implications of the Feature Binding in JapaneseIn this section we will sketch out some consequences of our theory of split binding.

6.1.

Subject Orientation

Given that T agrees usually with the subject DP in a tensed clause in order to provide
nominative Case to the subject DP, the subject orientation of zibun(-zisin) can be explained
straightforwardly: Because zibun(-zisin) must agree with T in order to make its defective
-features complete, T always mediates the agreement between the subject DP andzibun(-zisin) in terms of binding relation. Thus, our proposed theory of Binding throughAgree naturally enables us to explain that zibun(-tati)-zisin (and zibun(-tati)) show subject
orientation. Look at the examples of multiple Nominative construction in Japanese in (29)
below:-127- 127 -

2008

(29)

a.

2012





Johnj-dake-ga imootok-ga
John-only-NOM sister-NOM





zibun-tati-zisinj+k-o hihanshi-ta.
SELF-PL-self-ACC criticize-PST‘As for only John, his sister criticized SELFj+k.’b.

Johnj-dake-ga imootok-ga
John-only-NOM sister-NOM
katar-ta.
tell-PST

Maryl-nizibun-tati-zisinj+k/j+k+l/*j+l/*k+l-nituite
Mary- DAT SELF-PL-self
about‘As for only John, his sister told Mary about SELFj+k/j+k+l/*j+l/*k+l.’
It has been assumed (cf. Ura 1996 and Hiraiwa 2005) that a single T in Japanese may enter
into multiple nominative Case feature checking relations with multiple Subjects. Given ourtheory of Binding through Agree, according to which T mediates a binding relation between asubject DP and a -defective reflexive within its clause, it can be naturally explained that(29a) has the interpretation ‘John’s sister criticized John and herself,’ because T individuallyagrees with John and with imooto ‘sister’ in the nominative Case and their -features. Then, T
provides zibun-tati-zisin with their -features.
Next, consider the example in (29b). In (29b) T agrees obligatorily with the two subjects
John and imooto to provide them with nominative Case. Additionally, if T agrees optionallywith the non-subject DP Mary, zibun-tati-zisin can be split bound by the two subjects andMary, resulting in the split binding, as shown by the index ‘j+k+l’. An empirically interesting
point here is that the split binding by one of its subjects (nominative DPs) and the non-subject
DP is never allowed, as shown by the index ‘*j+l’ and ‘*k+l’. That is, there is no way for the
subjects (nominative DPs) with which T agrees not to enter into the binding relation withzibun-tati-zisin in (29b), but only the non-subject DP is allowed to be free from the binding
relation because T may or may not agree with it in (29b). This lends a piece of strong supporting evidence for the syntactic mechanism of split binding through the mediation of T.
6.2.

-complete Anaphora as a Reflexivizer

Because pronoun+zisin (such as kare(ra)-zisin), another locally-bound reflexive in Japanese, is -complete, it needs no -feature agreement with T; rather, we assume, following
Aikawa (1993), that pronoun+zisin is a reflexivizer à la Reinhart and Reuland (1993). Given
this, the binding relation between pronoun+zisin and its antecedent is materialized not throughsyntactic binding but through co-argumenthood; as a result, its strict locality follows. Contra
Aikawa (1993), however, we hypothesize that the other reflexives in Japanese are not a reflexivizer. The fact that pronoun+zisin needs no -feature agreement with T results in its lackof subject orientation.
6.3.

Zibun vs. Zibun-zisin
As for the non-local reflexive zibun(-tati) in Japanese, its lack of person- and gen--128- 128 -Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)

der-features indicates that it is -defective. Thus, we predict that zibun-tati permits split binding. The syntactic mechanism of the split binding of zibun-tati can be explained consistently
with our proposed theory of Binding through Agree (See Appendix II for a diagnosis of syntactically split binding with respect to zibun-tati). Why is it that zibun(-tati) behaves differently from zibun(-tati)-zisin in terms of the locality of binding dependency? We follow theidea that the former, being morphologically simple, may undergo (sometimes long-distance)
LF movement (à la Pica 1991, Katada 1991, Hestvik 1992, etc.).7 In addition, we assume thatbinding through the Probe-Goal agreement should take place after zibun undergoes
long-distant LF movement. Therefore, if zibun in an embedded tensed clause moves up to thematrix clause, the matrix T can agree with zibun after its long-distant movement. As a result,the long-distant binding between the subject DP and zibun can be established through the mediation of the matrix T at LF. This indicates that zibun allows the long-distant binding over atensed-clause boundary.
Then, an empirically significant question arises: Why is it that the split binding ofzibun-tati with the property of long-distant LF movement is not allowed when thetensed-clause boundary intervenes between zibun-tati and one of its antecedents? Consider thefollowing examples in (30) by comparing it with the examples of zibun-tati-zisin in (25)above.
(30)

a. *Daremok-ga sensei-ni [darekah-ga zibun-tatik+h-o hihansi-ta to ] it-ta.
 ‘For every x, there is some y such that x told the teacher that y criticized x and y.’b. OK Daremok-ga darekah-ni [sensei-ga zibun-tatik+h-o hihansi-ta to ] it-ta.
= ‘For every x, there is some y such that x told y that the teacher criticized x and y.’Given that zibun-tati in an embedded tensed clause can undergo long-distant LF movement, it
can be naturally explained why (30b) is acceptable in contradiction to the ill-formed examplesof zibun-tati-zisin, as shown in (25b). When one of its antecedents is on the outside of theembedded tensed clause, as shown in (30a), the binding relation between zibun-tati and thesubject DP of the matrix clause can be established through the mediation of the matrix T, but
the matrix T cannot agree with another possible antecedent in the embedded tensed clause(i.e., the subject DP in the embedded tensed clause), because T in the embedded tensed clauseagrees with the embedded subject DP. Then the derivation crashes at LF, and this is why(30a) is unacceptable. However, when both of its antecedents are on the outside of the embedded tensed clause, we predict that the split binding of zibun-tati (i.e., the binding relation
between the subject DP and the non-subject DP in the matrix clause and zibun-tati within theembedded tensed clause) is allowed, unlike the same situation of zibun-tati-zisin. This is bor7

In Appendix I, we argue that other Japanese morphologically simplex reflexives mizukara and onore
are locally bound. This is because we assume mizukara and onore cannot move at LF. As a result, it
can be naturally explained that they show the same locality for the binding dependency as that ofzibun-zisin; that is, they can be bound over the non-tensed-clause boundary, but they cannot be boundwhen the tensed-clause boundary intervenes between them and their antecedents.

-129- 129 -

2008

2012









ne out, as shown in (30b).
6.4.

Binding within Causative Clauses

It is very interesting to consider how our theory of split binding enables us to explain thata -defective anaphor in a causative clause can be bound by a causer over the non-tensed
clause boundary. This fact was first reported in Kuroda (1965), as shown in (31a) below:
(31)

a.

[ Billh-ni
Johnk-ga
John-NOM Bill-DAT

zibun-zisink/h-o mi]-sase-ta.
(Kuroda 1965)
SELF-self-ACC see-CAUS-PST‘John made Bill see SELF.’b.

[ Billh-ni
Johnk-ga
Johkn-NOM Bill-DAT

kare-zisin*k/h-ohimself-ACCmi]-sase-ta.
(Kurata 1986)
see-CAUS-PST‘John made Bill see himself.’
In (31a), the local reflexive zibun-zisin can be bound by the causer John over the non-tensed
clause boundary, even though it cannot undergo LF movement. In contrast, kare-zisin, theother local reflexive in Japanese, cannot be bound over a non-tensed clause boundary, as
shown by the ill-formedness of (31b).
6.4.1.

Two Types of Causative Clause

Under our theory of split binding, the antecedent(s) of a -defective anaphor is/are always destined to be the one with which T agrees. In this paper, we assume that the causative
clause may or may not have T[tense] with the -complete specifications (see Kitagawa 1986
for a similar idea). If the causative clause does not have T[tense] (in this case, the causative
clause is vP, as shown in (32) below), there is no Probe for a -defective reflexive in vP
within the causative clause:(32)

causative clause = vP
[TP DPk-ga[vP DPh-ni

OKzibun-zisink/*h-o V ]
OK

CAUS

T[] ]As a result, T[+tense] in the matrix clause turns out to be a Probe and agrees with the reflexive and it also agrees with the subject DP. Here it should be recalled that a binding dependency through Agree is established at LF, where phases are irrelevant to any operation. Thus,
the binding relation between the causer at the matrix clause and the -defective reflexive
within the causative clause over the non-tensed clause boundary can safely be established, as
required, when the causative clause does not have T.
On the other hand, if the causative clause has T[tense] with the -complete specifications (in this case, the causative clause is TP, as shown in (33) below), T in the causative-130- 130 -Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)

clause can agree with the causee within the causative clause, but it cannot agree with the causer at the matrix clause, because T in the embedded clause is the T nearest to the causee, but it
is not the T nearest to the causer (because the matrix T is the nearest to the causer). Thus, the-defective reflexive within the causative clause can be bound by the causee through the mediation of the embedded T, but it cannot be bound by the causer at the matrix clause when thecausative clause has T.
(33)

causative clause = non-tensed TP with -complete specifications
OK[TP DPk-ga [TP DPh-ni zibun-zisin*k/h-o V T[]] CAUS T[] ]OKTo sum up, a -defective reflexive within the causative clause is bound by the causee within
the causative clause when the causative clause has T, while it is bound by the causer at thematrix clause when the causative clause does not have T.
6.4.2.

Ban on Crossover-Binding

In this subsection, we will provide a piece of supporting evidence for the above conclusion that there are two types of causative clause in Japanese. Look at the following example in(34), where crossover-binding is blocked; that is, the two occurrences of zibun-zisin must have the same single binder:(34)

John-wa [ Taro-ni
zibun-zisin-no hahaoya-ni
John-TOP Taro-DAT SELF-self-GEN mother-DAT
koibito-oshookais]-ase]-ta.
girl friend-ACC introduce-CAUSE-PAST.

zibun-zisin-no
SELF-self-GEN‘John made Taro introduce SELF’s girl friend to SELF’s mother.’
In (34), the two occurrences of zibun-zisin must have Taro as their binder or they must haveJohn as their binder, but it cannot be the case that one of them has Taro and the other has
John as their binders. It should be noted, however, that crossover-binding is possible in general, as shown in (35):(35)

dono sitauke-gaisyaj-ni-mo
Toyota-saek-ga
Toyota-even-NOM every subsidiary-DAT-PRT
sokok-no syain-oukeire-sase-ta.
it-GEN
staff-ACC take in-CAUS-PST

sokoj-noit-GENkeiei-bumon-emanaging section-to‘Even Toyotak made every subsidiaryj take in itsk staff to itsj managing section.’
Why is the crossover-binding impossible in (34)? If the causative clause in (34) happens
to have T, then our theory described in §6.4.1 above demands that the two occurrences ofzibun-zisin should be feature-bound by the causee, which agrees with the T within the causative clause; accordingly, they must have the causee as their binder. On the other hand, if the-131- 131 -

2008

2012









causative clause in (34) happens to lack T, then our theory demands that the two occurrencesof zibun-zisin should be feature-bound by the matrix T, which agrees with the causer at theSpec of the matrix T; accordingly, they must have the causer as their binder. It is important to
notice, here, that our theory appropriately explains that there is no crossover-binding in (34).
6.4.3.

Subjecthood of Causee

Given Ura’s (1996, 2000) assumption that a DP assumes subjecthood when the DP
agrees with T, then we are led to predict (I) that the causee in a causative clause has subjecthood when zibun-zisin is bound by the causee, and (II) that the causee in a causative clausedoes not have subjecthood when zibun-zisin within the causative clause is bound by the causer
at the matrix clause. Look at (36):(36)

Maryk-wa [ Johnh-ni [ PRO okori-nagara ] zibun-zisin-o hihans]-ase-ta.
Mary-TOP John-DAT
angry-while
SELF-self-ACC criticize-CAUS-PAST‘Mary made John criticize SELF, while PRO being angry.’

The factual interpretation for (36) is as follows: If zibun-zisin is to be bound by John, PRO in
the adjunct adverbial clause must be construed as John, and if zibun-zisin is to be bound by
Mary, PRO in the adjunct adverbial clause must be construed as Mary. This fact becomes
clearer if we take a closer look at the interpretation for (37) below:
(37)

a.

Maryk-wa [ karerah-ni [ PRO*k/h okori-nagara ] zibun-tati-zisinh-oMary-TOP them-DAT
angry-while
SELF-self-ACC
hihans]-ase-ta.
criticize-CAUS-PAST‘Maryk made themh criticize SELFh, while PRO*k/h being angry.’b.

Maryk-wa [ karerah-ni [ PROk/??h okori-nagara]
Mary-TOP them-DAT
angry-while
hihans]-ase-ta.
criticize-CAUS-PASTzibun-zisink -o
SELF-self-ACC‘Maryk made themh criticize SELFk, while PROk/??h being angry.’In the case where (37a) is acceptable, it must be that zibun-tati-zisin is bound by the causee
karera, because it is a plural form. Thus, the causative clause in (37a) must be TP andT[tense] in the causative clause inevitably agrees both with the reflexive and with the causee. Because there is no interpreting the controller of PRO in the adjunct adverbial clause as
any element other than karera in (35a), the prediction with our theory is borne out, as required. This lends strong support to our theory of Binding through Agree.

-132- 132 -Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)

7.

Conclusion

Our aim in this paper was to clarify under what conditions the split binding is possible.
First, we have argued that one of the Japanese locally-bound reflexive form zibun-tati-zisin
can be syntactically bound by split antecedents within its local domain. Next, we have proposed the theory of Binding through Agree, and demonstrated that T with the ability of multiple checking mediates the agreement between a -defective reflexive and its split antecedents(i.e., the subject DP and the non-subject DP). We also explained the parametric difference
between the languages allowing the split binding for a locally-bound reflexive and the ones
disallowing it.

Appendix I:

Morphologically Simple Reflexives That Are Locally-boundMizukara and onore, being their -defective nature, show subject orientation, too (Ishino
and Ura 2011), as correctly predicted with our theory presented herein.
(I.1)

a.

Johnk-ga
Billj-niJohn-NOM Bill-DAT

mizukarak/*j/onorek/*j-nituite
SELF/SELF
about

katar-ta.
tell-PST‘Johnk told Billj about SELFk/*j.’b.

Billj-ni
Johnk-ga
John-NOM Bill-DAT

zibun-zisink/*j/zibunk/*j-nituite
SELF-self/SELF
aboutkatar-ta.
tell-PST‘Johnk told Billj about SELFk/*j.’c.

Billj-ni
Johnk-ga
John-NOM Bill-DAT

kare-zisink/j-nituite
he-self
about

katar-ta.
tell-PST‘Johnk told Billj about SELFk/j.’
As observed in (11c) and (12c) above in the main text, mizukara and onore differ from zibunand zibun-zisin in that the former disallow the strict identity reading in an elliptical domain asa surface anaphor. Ishino and Ura (2011) argue that zibun and zibun-zisin can be used not only as a -defective anaphor but also as a referential pronominal, which does not need any
syntactic binding, whereas mizukara and onore can only be used as a -defective anaphor insyntax.
The morphologically simple reflexive forms mizukara and onore in Japanese, unlike theother morphologically simple reflexive zibun, show the strict locality just like pronoun+zisin
and zibun-zisin (cf. Kitagawa 1986 and Ishino and Ura 2011). This fact is revealed by theill-formedness of (I.2a,b,c) below:-133- 133 -

2008

(I.2)

2012









a. *Sanzook-ga
Gokuu-ni[ mamono-ga zibun-zisink/kare-zisink-o
Sanzoo-NOM Gokuu-DAT goblin-NOM SELF-self/he-self-ACC
oikaker-teir-uto ] tuge-ta.
tell-PST
chase-PROG-PRES C‘Sanzok told Goku [ that goblins chased SELFk ].’Gokuu-ni[ mamono-ga
b. * Sanzook-ga
Sanzoo-NOM Gokuu-DAT goblin-NOM
oikaker-teir-uto ] tuge-ta.
chase-PROG-PRES C
tell-PST

mizukarak/onorek-o
SELF/SELF-ACC‘Sanzok told Goku [ that goblins chased SELFk ].’c.

oikaker-teir-u
to ]Sanzook-ga Gokuu-ni [ mamono-ga zibunk-o
Sanzoo-NOM Gokuu-DAT goblin-NOM SELF-ACC chase-PROG-PRES C
tuge-ta.
tell-PST‘Sanzok told Goku [ that goblins chased SELFk ].’This is very surprising, given Faltz’s (1977) and Pica’s (1987) generalization that morphologically simple reflexives with subject-orientation are tolerable with the long-distance binding.
Under our theory of feature-binding, the locally-bound nature of mizukara and onore is naturally explained; for, -defective reflexives must be feature-bound through Agree, the operation which is principally restricted within a single tensed clause, as we argued in the maintext. The conclusion is that mizukara and onore, unlike zibun-zisin and zibun (both of which
can be used as a referential pronominal), can only be used as a genuine -defective anaphor(Ishino and Ura 2011).
Appendix II:

Split Binding and Zibun-tati

Abe (1992) claims that the split antecedence illustrated in (9) above in the text is not a
genuine one, but it is obtained as a special case of the group reading for zibun-tati (cf., also,
Kawasaki 1989), which depends not upon syntactic binding but upon coreference in discourse. This claim can be examined by detecting whether or not zibun-tati tolerates the sloppy
identity reading when being embedded in an elliptical domain as a surface anaphor.
(II.1)a.

Johnk-ga [ Billj-ni Ø yorimo sakini ],John-NOM Bill-DAT
than earlier
katar-ta.
tell-PST

Tomg-ni zibun-tatik+g(+else)-nituite
Tom-DAT SELF-PL
aboutØ = ‘told about SELFk+j(+else-g)/k+g(+else)/k+g+j(+else).’-134- 134 -(strict/sloppy)

Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)b.

Maryk-ga [ Janej-kara Ø yorimo sakini], Sueg-kara zibun-tatik+g(+else)-nituite
Mary-NOM Jane-fromthan earlier
Sue-from SELF-PL
about
kii-ta.
hear-PSTØ = ‘heard about SELFk+j(+else-g)/k+g(+else)/k+g+j(+else).’c.

(strict/sloppy)

Chomskyk-ga [ Lasnikj-ni Ø yorimo sakini ], Halleg-ni zibun-tatik+g(+else)-o
Chomsky-NOM Lasnik-DAT
than earlier
Halle-DAT SELF-PL-ACC
hihans-ase-ta.
criticize-CAUS-PSTØ = ‘criticize SELFk+j(+else-g)/k+g(+else)/k+g+j(+else).’(strict/sloppy)

As the interpretation of the above examples shows, zibun-tati yields the sloppy reading in addition to the strict reading. Under our theory, this implies that zibun-tati can be used as a logophor, which utilizes coreference in discourse. This, in turn, lends empirical support to Abe’s(1992) claim.
Appendix III:

Split Binding in English

It has widely been admitted that the English third-person plural reflexive themselves is alocally-bound reflexive and cannot be split bound.
(III.1)a. * Johnk told Billh about themselvesk+h.
b. * Johnk showed Maryh themselvesk+h in the mirror.

(Wasow 1979)(Fiengo and May 1994)

However, it has sometimes been reported in the literature that the split binding for themselves
is possible in a certain context.
(III.2)

a. OKMaryk showed Paulh a nice picture of themselvesk+h.

(Carroll 1986)

b. OK John told Mary about interesting and important political ideas, while Billk told
Sueh only about themselvesk+h.
(Okada 1998)c.

[Mary and Sue told Jane that they all looked exactly alike, but Jane was the only
one who claimed not to be able to see the resemblance.]
OK
So Maryk showed Janeh themselvesk+h in the mirror, so that she could see theirfaces together and could compare them.
(Okada 1998)

It has also been reported that the English reflexives can be bound over the tensed-clauseboundary in a certain context. Our theory demands that the reflexives in these kinds of example should be an instance of the contextually emphatic logophor in discourse. Importantly,
this is, indeed, endorsed by the observation that they do not have the sloppy reading when
they are interpreted under the VP-deletion context. Consider the following:-135- 135 -2008(III.3)

2012









a. OKMary thought that everyone was fond of pictures of herself.
(Cantall 1974, Lebeaux 1984, Pollard and Sag 1992, etc.)
b. OK John eventually realized that the girl was taller than himself. (Zribi-Hertz 2007)
c. OK Jack came to know that this bitch was in love with himself.

(III.4)a.

(Gast 2002)

Mary thought that everyone was fond of pictures of herself, and Jane did Ø, too.
herself in Ø = Mary, ?herself in Ø = Jane (strict OK, sloppy ?)<Lebeaux 1984: possibility of the existence of PRO in the picture-noun>b.

John realized that the girl was taller than himself, and Bill did Ø, too.
himself in Ø = John, *?herself in Ø = Billc.

(strict OK, sloppy NG)

Jack came to know that this bitch was in love with himself, and Bill did, Ø too.
himself in Ø = John, *herself in Ø = Bill(strict OK, sloppy NG)

Logophorically/emphatically used reflexives cannot be a bound variable (cf. Sevcenco 2006).
The following examples also endorse this:(III.5)a.

Maryk showed Paulh a nice picture of themselvesk+h, and Janej did Ø, too.
Ø = showed Paul a nice picture of Mary and Paul, Ø  showed Paul a nicepicture of Jane and Paul(strict OK, sloppy NG)b.

[ Under the same context as in (III.2b) ]Billk told Suek+h only about themselvesk+h, and Tomj did, Ø too.
Ø = told Sue about Bill and Sue, Ø  told Sue about Tom and Sue(strict OK, sloppy NG)c.

[ Under the same context as in (III.2c) ]Maryk showed Janeh themselvesk+h in the mirror, but Suej didn’t want to Ø, too.
Ø = show Jane themselvesk+h, Ø  show Jane themselvesk+j(strict OK, sloppy NG)

We therefore conclude that the split binding of a reflexive under special contexts in English(such as exemplified in (III.2)) is materialized only through the coreference in discourse.

References
Abe, J. (1992) “The Nature of Anaphors and Distributivity,” Generals paper, University of Connecticut.

-136- 136 -Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)

Aikawa, T. (1993) Reflexivity in Japanese and LF-Analysis of zibun-Binding, Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio
State University.
Aikawa, T. (1994) “Logophoric Use of the Japanese Reflexive Zibun-zisin ‘self-self’.” In M. Koizumi
and H. Ura, eds., Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics: Proceedings of FAJL1, MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 24, 1–22.
Berman, S. and A. Hestvik (1997) “Split Antecedents, Noncoreference, and DRT.” In H. Bennis et al.,eds., Atomism and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht, 1–29.
Bouchard, D. (1984) On the Content of Empty Categories, Foris, Dordrecht.
Burzio, L. (1991) “The Morphological Basis of Anaphora,” Journal of Linguistics 27, 81–105.
Büring, D. (2005) Binding Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Cantall, W. (1974) Viewpoint, Reflexives, and the Nature of Noun Phrases, Mouton, The Hague.
Carroll, S. (1986) “On Non-Anaphor Reflexives,” Revue Québécoise de Linguistique 15, 135–165
Chiou, M. (2007) NP-Anaphora in Modern Greek: A Neo-Gricean Pragmatic Approach, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Reading.
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, N. (2001) “Derivation by Phase.” In M. Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale: A Life in Language,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1–52.
Chomsky, N. (2008) “On Phases.” In R. Freidin, C. Otero, and M. L. Zubizarreta, eds., Foundational
Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roget Vergnaud, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 133–167.
Doron, E. (1983) Verbless Predicates in Hebrew, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Everaert, M. (1986) The Synatx of Reflexivization, Foris, Dordrecht.
Faltz, L. (1977) Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley. [published from Garland, 1985.]
Fiengo, R. and M. Haruna (1986) “Parameters in Binding Theory.” In T. Imai and M. Saito, eds., Issues in Japanese Linguistics, Foris, Dordrecht, 107–128.
Fiengo, R. and R. May (1994) Indices and Identity, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Fujii, T. (2004) “Multiple Zibun,” in Y. Otsu, ed., The Proceedings of the Fifth Tokyo Conference on
Psycholinguistics, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo, 87–109.
Gallego, Á. (2010) “Binding through Agree,” Linguistic Analysis 34, 163–192.
Gast, V. (2002) The Grammar of Identity: Intensifiers and Reflexives as Expressions of an Identity
Function, Ph.D. dissertation, Free University of Berlin.
Heim, I. (1998) “Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation: A Reinterpretation of Reinhart’s Approach.”
In U. Sauerland and O. Percus, eds., The Interpretive Tract, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 25, 205–246.
Heim, I. (2008) “Features on Bound Pronouns.” In D. Harbour et al., eds., Phi Theory: Phi-Features
across Modules and Interfaces, Oxford University Press, New York, 35–56.
Heim, I. and A. Kratzer (1998) Semantics in Generative Grammar, Blackwell, Malden.
Heinat, F. (2008) Probes, Pronouns, and Binding in the Minimalist Program, VDM Verlag, Saarbrücken.
Hestvik, A. (1992) “LF-Movement of Pronouns and Antisubject Orientation,” Linguistic Inquiry 23,
557–594.
Hestvik, A. (1995) “Reflexives and Ellipsis,” Natural Language Semantics 3, 211–237.
Hicks, G. (2009) The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Hinds, J. (1973) “Some Remarks on soo su-,” Papers in Japanese Linguistics 2, 18–30.
Hiraiwa, K. (2005) Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and Clausal Architecture, Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.

-137- 137 -

2008

2012









Hoji, H. (1991) “KARE,” in C. Georgopoulos and R. Ishihara, eds., Interdisciplinary Approaches toLanguage: Essays in Honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 287–304.
Hoji, H. (2003) “Surface and Deep Anaphora, Sloppy Identity, and Experiments in Syntax.” In A.
Barss, ed., Anaphora: A Reference Guide, Blackwell, Malden, 172–236.
Humnick, L. (2009) Pronouns in Kumyk Discourse, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Ishino, N. (2012) Feature Transfer and Feature Learning in Universal Grammar: A Comparative
Study of the Syntactic Mechanism for Second Language Acquisition, Ph.D. dissertation,
Kwansei Gakuin University.
Ishino, N. and H. Ura (2009) “Selective Transfer Hypothesis in L2 Acquisition and Multiple Parameters for Japanese Reflexives,” Talk presented at the 139th Annual Meeting of The LinguisticSociety of Japan.
Ishino, N. and H. Ura (2010) “Light Verbs and the Licensing of VP-deletion in Japanese,” ms.,
Kwansei Gakuin University.
Ishino, N. and H. Ura (2011) “On Genuine Locally-bound Reflexives in Japanese,” ms., Kwansei
Gakuin University.
Kasai, H. (2000) “Some Split Antecedents Are Not Split,” Linguistic Research 17, 47–60.
Katada, F. (1990) The Representation of Anaphoric Relations in Logical Form, Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Southern California.
Katada, F. (1991) “The LF Representation of Anaphors,” Linguistic Inquiry 22, 287–314.
Kawasaki, N. (1989) Jibun-tati and Non-Coreferential Anaphora, ms., University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Kitagawa, Y. (1986) Subjects in Japanese and English, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Koster, J. (1984) “On Binding and Control,” Linguistic Inquiry 15, 417–459.
Koster, J. (1986) Domains and Dynasties: The Radical Autonomy of Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.
Kuno, S. (1972) “Pronominalization, Reflexivization, and Direct Discourse,” Linguistic Inquiry 3,
161–195.
Kuno, S. (1987) Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse, and Empathy, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Kurata, K. (1986) “Asymmetries in Japanese,” ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965) Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language, Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT.
Lebeaux, D. (1984) “Locality and Anaphoric Binding,” The Linguistic Review 4, 343–363.
Lee-Schoenfeld, V. (2008) “Binding, Phases, and Locality,” Syntax 11, 281–298.
Nakamura, M. (1989) “Reflexives in Japanese,” Gengo Kenkyu 95, 206–230.
Napoli, D. J. (1976) “Reflexivization across Clause Boundaries in Italian,” Journal of Linguistics 15,
1–27.
Noguchi, T. (1997) “Two Types of Pronouns and Variable Binding,” Language 73, 770–797.
Okada, M. (1998) “Reflexive Pronouns with Split Antecedents,” Journal of Pragmatics 30, 59–84.
Oshima, D. (2007) “On Empathic and Logophoric Binding,” Research on Language and Computation5, 19–35.
Pica, P. (1984) “On the Distinction between Argumental and Non-Argumental Anaphors.” In W. deGeest and Y. Putseys, eds., Sentential Complementation, Foris, Dordrecht, 185–193.
Pica, P. (1987) “On the Nature of the Reflexivization Cycle,” Proceedings of NELS 17, 483–499.
Pica, P. (1991) “On the Interaction between Antecedent-government and Binding: The Case of LongDistance Reflexivization.” In J. Koster and E. Reuland, eds., Long-Distance Anaphora,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 119–137.
Pollard, C. and I. Sag (1992) “Anaphors in English and the Scope of Binding Theory,” Linguistic Inquiry 23, 261–303.

-138- 138 -Towards a Theory of Spilt Binding (N. Ishino and H. Ura)

Quicolli, C. (2008) “Anaphora by Phase,” Syntax 11, 299–329.
Rappaport, G. (1986) “On Anaphor Binding in Russian,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 4,
97–120.
Reinhart, T. (1983) Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation, Croom Helm, London.
Reinhart, T. and E. Reuland (1991) “Anaphors and Logophors: An Argument Structure Perspective.”
In J. Koster and E. Reuland, eds., Long-Distance Anaphora, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 283–321.
Reinhart, T. and E. Reuland (1993) “Reflexivity,” Linguistic Inquiry 24, 657–720.
Reuland, E. (2001) “Primitives of Binding,” Linguistic Inquiry 32, 439–492.
Reuland, E. (2008) “Anaphoric Dependencies: How Are They Encoded? Towards a Derivation-based
Typology.” In E. König and V. Gast, eds., Reciprocals and Reflexives, Mouton de Gruyter,
Berlin, 499–555.
Safir, K. (2004) The Syntax of Anaphora, Oxford University Press, New York.
Saito, M. (1992) “Long Distance Scrambling in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1,
69–118.
Seely, T. D. (1993) “Binding Plural Pronominals,” CLS 29 Vol. II, 305–317.
Sells, P. (1987) “Aspects of Logophoricity,” Linguistic Inquiry 18, 445–479.
Selvanathan, N. (2009) Taan, ko(n), and Anaphoric Dependencies in Tamil, Master thesis, National
University of Singapore.
Sevcenco, A. (2006) Terms of Binding, Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht University.
Speas, M. (1990) Phrase Structure in Natural Language, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Tada, H. (1993) A / A-bar Partition in Derivation, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Tsukanova, V., and L. Nikolaeva (2008) “Ways To Express Reflexive in Arabic,” ms., Russian State
University.
Ura, H. (1994) Varieties of Raising and the Feature-based Bare Phrase Structure Theory, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7.
Ura, H. (1996) Multiple Feature-Checking: A Theory of Grammatical Function Splitting, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Ura, H. (2000) Checking Theory and Grammatical Functions in Universal Grammar, Oxford University Press, New York.
Uriagereka, J. and Á. J. Gallego (2006) “(Multiple) Agree as Local (Binding and) Obviation,” Paper
presented at Going Romance XX, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
van de Kerke, S. (1991) “Co-Indexation in Predicate Argument Structure: The Characteristics ofQuechua ku,” Revue québécoise de linguistique 20, 79–97.
Wasow, T. (1979) Anaphora in Generative Grammar, Story-Scientia, Ghent.
Yang, D.-W. (1983) “The Extended Binding Theory of Anaphors,” Language Research 19, 169–192.
Zribi-Hertz, A. (2007) “From Intensive to Reflexive”, ms., Université Paris-8.

-139- 139 -ON THE EVENT ARGUMENT AND ANTI-QUANTIFIER ZUTSU IN JAPANESE *Yoichi Miyamoto
Osaka University

1.

Introduction

This paper examines the syntax of the distributive affix zutsu in Japanese, which attaches
to a numeral quantifier (NQ), as exemplified in (1a–c):1(1)

a. Taroo-to-Hanako-ga[ni-satsu -zutsu -no hon] -o katta (-koto)
Taroo-and-Hanako-nom [two-cl -dist -gen book -acc bought (-fact)‘Taroo and Hanako bought two books each.’b. Taroo-to-Hanako-ga[hon ni-satsu-zutsu] -o katta (-koto)
Taroo-and-Hanako-nom [book two-cl -dist -acc bought (-fact)c. Taroo-to-Hanako-ga
hon-o
ni-satsu-zutsu katta (-koto)
Taroo-and-Hanako-nom book-acc two-cl -distbought (-fact)

It is well known that three positions are available for NQs; accordingly, the same three
options are also available for NQs with zutsu (see Gil (1990) for relevant discussion). One of
the readings available in (1a–c) is that Taroo bought two books and Hanako also bought two
books.
When it comes to the position of zutsu, the distributive affix in question is not* Part of this paper was presented at the 28th Conference of the English Linguistic Society of Japan(November 2010), EFL University in Hyderabad, India (February 2011), and Temporal, Modal andEvent Interpretation in Natural Language at University of Azores in Ponta Delgada, Portugal (June,2011). I am indebted to the audiences at these three occasions: In particular, Duk-Ho An, R.
Amritavalli, Rahul Balusu, Jon Clenton, Yumiko Ishikawa, K. A. Jayaseelan, Keiko Murasugi,
Mamoru Saito, and Saeko Urushibara. This research was supported in part by the grant from theJapanese Ministry of Education and Science to the Center for Linguistics at Nanzan University forestablishment of centers for advanced research (International Collaborative Research Project on
Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition) as well as the grant-in-aid for scientific research(No.22520397) awarded to the author.
1

Abbreviations used in this paper are as follows:
acc = accusative, cl = classifier, dat = dative, dist = distributive affix, e = event argument,
e.c. = empty category [= elided argument], gen = genitive, nom = nominative, pl = plural.
In addition, binominal each (Safir and Stowell 1988) is used in English translation throughout the
paper without any theoretical significance. See Section 7.

-141-

2008

2012







necessarily attached to an NQ modifying the object, but can also be attached to an NQ
modifying other elements such as the subject, as shown in (2a–c):(2)

a. ?? [futa-ri -zutsu -no gakusei] -ga furansugo-to-doitsugo-o[two-cl -dist -gen student -nom French-and-German-acc
benkyooshiteiru (-koto)
be studying (-fact)‘Two students each are studying French and German.’b. ??[gakusei futa-ri -zutsu] -ga furansugo-to-doitsugo-o benkyooshiteiru (-koto)[student two-cl -dist -nom French-and-German-acc be studying(-fact)‘Two students each are studying French and German.’c. ?? gakusei-ga futa-ri -zutsu furansugo-to-doitsugo-o benkyooshiteiru (-koto)student-nom two-cl -distFrench-and-German-acc be studying(-fact)‘Two students each are studying French and German.’

Although slightly degraded, these examples can describe the situation in which two students
are studying French and another two students are studying German.
For terminology, following Safir and Stowell (1988), I call the element over which
distribution takes place “Range NP (R-NP hereafter).” In (1a–c), Taroo-to-Hanako acts as an
R-NP under the reading that Taroo bought two books and Hanako also bought two books. In(2a–c), the object NP appears to serve as an R-NP.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, I introduce Oh’s (2006) QR-based
approach to Korean distributive affix ssik, the Korean counterpart of zutsu, which sets a stage
for the present study. Of interest is his claim that the proper relationship between ssik and its
R-NP is established in LF via Quantifier Raising (May 1977, 1985: QR hereafter) of the
R-NP. In Section 3, I argue against Oh’s proposal, and show that the relationship in point
must be obtained in overt syntax. This in turn calls for an alternative to Oh’s LF-based
analysis. Section 4 is then devoted to my proposal, based on the movement of the distributive
operator, adopting the essence of Heim, Lasnik and May’s (1991) analysis of the reciprocal
each other. In Section 5, based on the current proposal on the distributive affix in point, I
clarify the context in which an object NP containing an NQ with zutsu can be elided. In
Section 6, I examine cases where ellipsis of a subject NP containing an NQ with zutsu isintended. This section shows that not only LF-copying but also PF-deletion should beavailable to “elide” subjects in Japanese, and suggests a hybrid hypothesis for so-called“argument ellipsis” (AE hereafter) in Japanese. Finally, Section 7 concludes the paper.
2.

Oh’s (2006) QR-based Approach to Anti-QuantifiersThis section briefly introduces Oh’s (2006) proposal on the Korean distributive affix ssik

-142- 142 -On the Event Argument and Anti-Quantifier Zutsu in Japanese (Y. Miyamoto)in order to set the stage for the discussion to follow. The affix in question is attached to an
NQ, parallel to its Japanese counterpart in (2a–c), as illustrated in (3):(3)

namca twu-myeng-i
sangca sey-kay-ssik -ul wunpanhayssta.
man two-cl-nom box
three-cl -dist -acc carried‘Two men carried three boxes each.’(Oh 2006: 26)

One of the readings available in (3) is that the two men each carried three boxes. He assumes
that under this reading, (3) has the structure in (4) in overt syntax:2(4)[TP D [TP namca wu-myeng-i1 [T’ [VP sangca sey-kay-ssik-ul2 [VP e [VP t1 t2
wunpanhayssta]]]]]]In (4), D represents the distributive operator, and e is the event argument. A crucial ingredientfor Oh’s analysis is the QR of an R-NP in LF to a position c-commanding this distributive
operator. In LF, the subject NP, the intended R-NP, is raised above D, as shown in (5):(5)

[TP namca twu-myeng-i1 [TP D [TP t1 [T’ [VP sangca sey-kay-ssik-ul2 [VP e [VP t1
_________________|
t2 wunpanhayssta]]]]]]]For Oh, the structure in (5) makes the intended distribution of the subject NP, describedabove, available.3
Of particular interest is Oh’s statement that (6) is ambiguous between the two readings
shown in (7) (see also Choe (1987) for related discussion):(6)

namca twu-myeng-ssik-i
sangca sey-kay-lul wunpanhayssta.
man two-cl-dist-nom box
three-cl-acc carried(Oh 2006: 25)(7)

a. Men in pairs carried each of a set of three boxes.
b. Two men together carried three boxes (where happened more than one instance of
this, simultaneously or one after another).
(Oh 2006: 33)

According to Oh, these two readings are realized by the following LF representations
respectively:
2

The structures given in this section are simplified from Oh’s (2006) proposed structures based on
Heim and Kratzer’s (1998) framework, but the structures provided in the text are sufficient to showthat QR plays an important role in his proposal. Readers are referred to Oh (2006) for the precise
representations of (3) in overt syntax and LF.
3

See Oh (2006) for his semantic mechanism to interpret the distributive affix in question.

-143- 143 -

2008

(8)

2012









a. [TP sangca sey-kay-lul2 [TP D [TP namca twu-myeng-ssik-i1 [T’ [VP e [VP t1 t2
____________________________________________________|
wunpanhayssta]]]]]]
b. [TP e3 [TP D [TP namca twu-myeng-ssik-i1 [T’ [VP sangca sey-kay-lul2 [VP t3
_________________________________________________________|[VP t1 t2 wunpanhayssta]]]]]]](Oh 2006: 61)

In (8a), the object NP sangca sey-kay-lul ‘three box-acc’, the intended R-NP, is raised above
D via QR, resulting in the reading in (7a). On the other hand, the event argument e is QR-ed
to the position above D in (8b), and the reading in (7b) results.
To sum up, we have seen that QR plays a crucial role in Oh’s analysis of the Korean
distributive affix in question. His proposal indicates that QR is available even in Korean,
which is claimed to exhibit scope rigidity (e.g., Ahn 1990, Ha 2008, and Sohn 1995, amongst
others). To the extent that Oh’s analysis is correct, we are forced to clarify the context inwhich QR is available in so-called scope-rigid languages. Provided that Oh’s analysis extends
to the Japanese distributive affix zutsu, we need to determine why QR is unavailable insentences such as (9) in Japanese (Kuroda 1971, Hoji 1985, amongst others):(9)

dareka-ga
daremo-ni
atta (-koto)
someone-nom everyone-dat met (-fact)‘Someone met everyone.’

With these questions in mind, I turn to examine how the type of predicate affects thegrammaticality of sentences with an NQ with ssik and zutsu in the next section. Yet, readers
might immediately recognize my answer to the questions raised here.
3.

C-Command Requirement on Anti-Quantifiers
The paradigm with which this section deals is given in (10a–d) (Duk-Ho An, p.c.):(10)

sey-kwen-uy chayk-ul sassta.
a. ??twu-myeng -ssik -uy haksayng -i
two-cl-dist -gen student -nom three-cl-gen book-acc bought‘Two students each bought (the) three books.’b. sey-kwen-uy chayk -ul twu-myeng-ssik -uy haksayng -i
sassta.
three-cl -gen book -acc two-cl-dist -gen student -nom bought‘(the) three books, two students each bought.’-144- 144 -On the Event Argument and Anti-Quantifier Zutsu in Japanese (Y. Miyamoto)sey-kay-uy oykwuke-lul anta.
c. # twu-myeng -ssik -uy haksayng -i
two-cl-dist -gen student -nom three-cl -gen foreign language -acc know‘Two students each know (the) three foreign languages.’d. sey-kay -uy oykwuke-lul twu-myeng-ssik -uy haksayng -i
anta.
three-cl -gen foreign language -acc two-cl-dist -gen student -nom know‘(the) three foreign languages, two students each know.’
We obtain the same type of paradigm with sentences containing an NQ with zutsu inJapanese, as shown in (11a–d):(11)

a. ??gakusei futa-ri -zutsu -ga furansugo-to-doitsugo-o benkyooshiteiru(-koto)student two-cl -dist -nom French-and-German-acc be studying(-fact)‘Two students each are studying French and German.’b. [furansugo-to-doitsugo-o1 [gakusei futa-ri -zutsu -ga [ t1 benkyooshiteiru]]][French-and-German-acc [student two-cl -dist -nom
be studying(-koto)(-fact)‘French and German, two students each are studying.’
c. #gakusei futa-ri -zutsu -ga furansugo-to-doitsugo-o yoku shitteiru (-koto)student two-cl -dist -nom French-and-German-acc well know (-fact)‘Two students each know French and German well.’d. ? [furansugo-to-doitsugo-o1 [gakusei futa-ri -zutsu -ga [ t1 yoku shitteiru]]] (-koto)[French-and-German-acc [student two-cl -dist -nom
well know(-fact)‘French and German, two students each know well.’
The difference between (10a, b) and (11a, b) on the one hand, and (10c, d) and (11c, d) on theother, is that the former contain the stage-level predicates, sassta ‘bought’ andbenkyoo-shiteiru ‘be studying,’ and the latter involve the individual-level predicate anta
‘know’ and shitteiru ‘know.’ In the discussion which follows, I focus on the Japaneseparadigm in (11), and assume that my argument extends to the Korean paradigm in (10).
First, notice that in parallel to (2), (11a) is slightly degraded. This slight deviance, if it isgenuine, may be difficult, if not impossible, to account for under the QR-based approachsince nothing seems to go wrong with the QR of the object NP in LF in this example. In
addition, this deviance is not observed in (11b) in which the object NP is scrambled to thesentence-initial position in overt syntax. This asymmetry between (11a) and (11b), then,already suggests that what is relevant in licensing zutsu is the proper relationship between the
distributive affix and the R-NP in overt syntax. Let us turn to the contrast between (11a) and-145- 145 -

2008

2012





(11c), which shows that the distinction between stage-level and individual-level predicatesmust be taken into consideration. This dichotomy confirms that it is in overt syntax that the
distributive affix zutsu is licensed (contra Oh 2006). Notice that if zutsu were licensed in LF,
the object NP would be able to move to the sentence-initial position not only in (11a) but alsoin (11c). Accordingly, under the QR-based approach, (11a) and (11c) are expected to beequally grammatical, contrary to fact. Furthermore, the contrast between (11c) and (11d)provides additional support for the relevance of a relationship between the affix in question
and the R-NP in overt syntax. The obvious difference between these two examples is the
position of the intended R-NP in overt syntax. In (11d), the object NP is overtly raised to thesentence-initial position via scrambling in this example. In short, the paradigm in (11) showsthat the intended R-NP must be located higher than an NP containing an NQ with zutsu in
overt syntax. The question remains as to how to account for the contrast between (11a) and(11c); in particular, which element functions as an R-NP in (11a)? This contrast ought to betied to the distinction between stage-level and individual-level predicates.
The contrast between (11a) and (11c) reminds us of Oh’s (2006) proposal on the Korean
distributive affix in Section 2, based on the existence of an event argument in syntax (see also
Basilico 2003 for the existence of an event argument in syntax). If an event argument isavailable only with stage-level predicates (Kratzer 1995), the element in point seems to be theonly possible candidate for the R-NP in (11a) since the object NP cannot act as such. If theevent argument is indeed an R-NP in (11a), we are also able to account for why (11c) remains
ungrammatical since individual-level predicates lack such an argument.
Before closing this section, I need to add that given the conclusion that the distributive
affix should be structurally lower than the R-NP in overt syntax, we do not need to answer thequestion of when QR is available in scope-rigid languages since no QR is necessitated for the
licensing of the distributive affixes under question. I take this as a welcome consequence. In
the next section, I proceed to an alternative analysis which necessitates a proper relationshipbetween the R-NP and the distributive affix in question in overt syntax as well as theexistence of the event argument in sentences with a stage-level predicate.
4.

Proposal: Distributor-Based Approach to Anti-Quantifiers

As noted in the end of the previous section, one important ingredient for the licensing of
the affix in question in subject position is the presence of an event argument in syntax whichis available only when the predicate is stage-level (Kratzer 1995). I assume that the event
argument occupies SPEC of Event Phrase (Harley 1995, Travis 1994, among others: EvP,
hereafter), as illustrated in (12):(12)[EvP Event Argument [Ev’ [vP … ] Ev ]]As for the structure of the distributive affix, I assume the structure in (13):-146- 146 -On the Event Argument and Anti-Quantifier Zutsu in Japanese (Y. Miyamoto)(13)[DistP Distributive Op [Dist’ [NQ Num+Cl ] Dist ]]The distributive affix heads Distributive Phrase (DistP, hereafter), and its SPEC is occupiedby the distributive operator (D-Op hereafter), which I assume corresponds to covert each. In
this structure, the sole function of the distributive affix is to provide a position for the D-Op.
When it comes to the Op-movement in question, adopting Heim, Lasnik and May’s(1991) proposal on English reciprocal, I assume that the Op in question is raised and adjoined
to the R-NP. According to Heim, Lasnik and May (1991), each of the reciprocal each other israised and adjoined to the antecedent. For instance, (14a) has the LF representation given in(14b) via the movement of each:4(14)

a. Taroo and Hanako praised each other.
b. [TP [ [Taroo and Hanako] each1]1 [VP praised [ t1 other]]]

Likewise, in (15) for example, the D-Op is raised and adjoined to the intended R-NP
Taroo-to-Hanako ‘Taroo and Hanako’ under the reading that Taroo bought two books andHanako also bought another two books.
(15)

Taroo-to-Hanako-ga
hon ni-satsu-zutsu -o katta (-koto)
Taroo-and-Hanako-nom book two-cl -dist -acc bought (-fact)‘Taroo and Hanako bought two books each.’

The movement in point is illustrated in (16):(16)[TP [EvP e [vP [ [Taroo-to-Hanako] D-Op1]-ga [VP [DistP t1 [NQ hon ni-satsu]-zutsu]-o_______________|
katta]]]] (-koto)Now, the unavailability of the object NP acting as the R-NP in (11c), repeated here as(17), naturally follows:(17) # gakusei futa-ri -zutsu -ga furansugo-to-doitsugo-o yoku shitteiru (-koto)student two-cl -dist -nom French-and-German-acc well know (-fact)‘Two students each know French and German well.’Of importance here, is the well-known restriction on movement which states that movement
cannot be downward.

4

I do not illustrate the movement related to [t other] since it is not crucial for the present purpose. The
reader is referred to Heim, Lasnik and May (1991).

-147- 147 -

2008

2012







[TP [vP [DistP t1 [NQ gakusei futa-ri]-zutsu]-ga [VP [ [furansugo-to-doitsugo] D-Op1]-o|_____________________________________________________
yoku shitteiru]]] (-koto)(18)

In (18), since the predicate is individual-level, no event argument is present, and the only
potential R-NP is the object NP. However, if the D-Op targets this object NP, the movementin point becomes downward. As a result, the structure in (18) is not tenable; consequently,(17) is not acceptable.
Remarkably, if the object NP is scrambled to the sentence-initial position, (17) becomes
acceptable, as shown in (11d), repeated here as (19):(19)?

[TP [vP furansugo-to-doitsugo-o1 [vP gakusei futa-ri -zutsu -ga [VP t1 yoku
[TP
French-and-German-acc
student two-cl -dist -nomwellshitteiru]]]] (-koto)know(-fact)‘French and German, two students each know well.’Notice that the movement in question, now, becomes upward, as shown in (20):(20)[TP [vP [ [furansugo-to-doitsugo] D-Op2]-o1 [vP [DistP t2 [NQ gakusei futa-ri]-zutsu]-ga
_______________|[VP t1 yoku shitteiru]]]] (-koto)In (11b) also, repeated here as (21a), the scrambling of the object NP is followed by the
upward movement of the D-Op, as illustrated in (21b):(21)a. [TP [EvP e [vP furansugo-to-doitsugo-o1 [vP gakusei futa-ri -zutsu -ga [VP t1
French-and-German-acc
student two-cl -dist -nombenkyooshiteiru]]]]] (-koto)
be studying(-fact)‘Two students each are studying French and German.’b. [TP [EvP e [vP [ [furansugo-to-doitsugo] D-Op2]-o1 [vP [DistP t2 [NQ gakusei
_______________|
futa-ri]-zutsu]-ga [VP t1 benkyooshiteiru]]]]] (-koto)

The present proposal therefore correctly predicts without any additional, speculative
assumptions, that there is no grammatical contrast between (19) and (21a).
Finally, we have to return to (11a), repeated here as (22):-148- 148 -On the Event Argument and Anti-Quantifier Zutsu in Japanese (Y. Miyamoto)

(22)

??

[TP [EvP e [vP gakusei futa-ri -zutsu -ga [VP furansugo-to-doitsugo-ostudent two-cl -dist -nom [VFrench-and-German-acc
benkyooshiteiru]]]] (-koto)
be studying(-fact)‘Two students each are studying French and German.’

The current approach based on the D-Op forces the conclusion that the object NP is not an
R-NP in this example. Yet, the example in question is not as deviant as (17). The contrast
between (17) and (22) therefore indicates that in the latter example, zutsu successfully finds
an R-NP, which c-commands this distributive affix and that the slight marginality of thisexample comes from reasons independent of the licensing of the distributive affix underquestion. In (22), the only element which c-commands the distributive affix is the event
argument. Therefore, we are forced to conclude that the R-NP is this event argument in thisexample. Under the assumption that the event argument can be plural if it contains sub-events(Krifka 1992, Lasersohn 1995, among others), I propose that the movement of the D-Op is asin (23):(23)[TP [EvP [ [e] D-Op1] [vP [DistP t1 [NQ gakusei futa-ri]-zutsu]-ga
_____________|[VP furansugo-to-doitsugo-o benkyooshiteiru]]]] (-koto)

Recall at this point that Oh (2006) proposes that (6), repeated here as (24), allows thetwo distributive readings in (7), repeated here as (25a, b):(24)

namca twu-myeng-ssik -isangca sey-kay-lul wunpanhayssta.
man two-cl-dist -nom box
three-cl-acc carried(Oh 2006: 25)(25)

a. Men in pairs carried each of a set of three boxes.
b. Two men together carried three boxes (where happened more than one instance of
this, simultaneously or one after another).
(Oh 2006: 33)

Of importance for the present purpose is Oh’s claim that these two readings require thefollowing two distinct LF representations:(26)a. [TP sangca sey-kay-lul2 [TP D [TP namca twu-myeng-ssik-i1 [T’ [VP e [VP t1
t2 wunpanhayssta]]]]]]
b. [TP e3 [TP D [TP namca twu-myeng-ssik-i1 [T’ [VP sangca sey-kay-lul2 [VP t3[VP t1 t2 wunpanhayssta]]]]]]]

Oh specifically argues that the reading in (26a) does not involve distribution over the event
argument; rather, the QR-ed object NP is acting as the R-NP. However, I have concluded thatthe reading in question results from the D-Op taking the event argument as the R-NP.

-149- 149 -

2008

2012









Accordingly, there is an obvious tension between Oh (2006) and the current proposal.
This tension reminds us of Balusu’s (2006) proposal on duplicated numerals in Telugu.
In Dravidian languages such as Telugu, when numerals are duplicated as in (27a, b), a
distributive reading is forced.
(27)

a. ii
pilla-lu renDu renDu kootu-lu-ni
cuus-ee-ru.
these kid-pl two
twomonkey-pl-acc see-past-3p/pl‘Lit. These kids saw two two monkeys.’(Balusu 2006: 39)
b. iddaru iddaru pilla-lu kootu-lu-ni
cuus-ee-ru.
two two
kid-pl monkey-pl-acc see-past-3p/pl‘Lit. Two two kids saw (the) monkeys.’(Balusu 2006: 43)

In (27a), the distribution appears to be over the subject NP, and in (27b), the object NP
appears to be distributed. The latter example shows that as in the case of Japanese distributive
affix, the duplicated numeral in question can accompany the subject NP. Examining examples
such as (27a, b), Balusu claims that duplicated numerals always take the event argument as an
R-NP in semantics. 5 Informally put, (27b) means that there is an event consisting of
sub-events involving two kids seeing each monkey. The function of the duplicated numeral inthis example is to guarantee that each sub-event involves two kids. This paper adopts his
proposal in essence with one modification: The distributive operation in point is a syntactic
operation. If this modification is correct, it is not a problem for the present approach which
requires the distribution over the event argument in (22) to realize the apparent distributive
reading over the object NP.
The current proposal may also provide an answer to the question of why (22) is slightly
degraded. Notice that the intended distribution is “indirect”: The distributive affix in question
takes the event argument as its R-NP, and the distribution of the object NP is due to thebase-generated covert each, dubbed as D (Heim, Lasnik and May 1991), as shown in (28):(28)[TP [EvP [ [e] D-Op1] [vP [DistP t1 [gakusei futa-ri] -zutsu] -ga
____________| student two-cl -dist -nom
[VP [ [furansugo-to-doitsugo] D]-o benkyooshiteiru]]]] (-koto)[VP [ [French-and-German-acc be studying(-fact)

The existence of the D on the object NP guarantees that the event in question consists of two
sub-events, namely, studying French and studying German. This indirect association of the
D-Op and the object NP via the event argument may yield some processing difficulty in (22).

5

See Balusu (2006, 2010) for the details of his semantic analysis.

-150- 150 -On the Event Argument and Anti-Quantifier Zutsu in Japanese (Y. Miyamoto)To summarize this section, I have proposed that the c-command requirement posed on
the distributive affix zutsu, described in Section 3, arises as a consequence of the movementof the D-Op in overt syntax. Given the well-motivated assumption that movement must be
upward, the R-NP then must c-command the D-Op in question in overt syntax. In addition,
armed with the assumption that the event argument is present only with stage-level predicates,
I have accounted for the fact that the distributive affix in question can be part of the subject
NP only when the predicate is stage-level.
5.

Argument Ellipsis of an NQ with Zutsu in Object Position

Under the current proposal, this section discusses the availability of argument ellipsis(AE) of an NP with zutsu in object position. The purpose of this section is to show that thecurrent proposal provides a means to solve a puzzle concerning the AE of an NP containing
an NQ with zutsu.
In his pioneering work on AE, Oku (1998) observes that subjects can be elided inJapanese, as in (29b), following (29a):(29)a. Taroo-ga [[jibun-no ronbun] -ga saiyoo-sareru] -to omotteiru.
Taroo-nom [[self-gen paper -nom will be accepted -that think‘Taroo thinks that his paper will be accepted.’b. Hanako-mo [ e.c. saiyoo-sareru] -to omotteiru.
Hanako-also
will be accepted -that think‘Hanako also thinks that (his paper/her paper) will be accepted.’

Importantly, (29b) is ambiguous between strict and sloppy readings. Under the strict reading,this sentence means that Hanako also thinks that Taroo’s paper will be accepted. On the other
hand, under the sloppy reading, it means that Hanako also thinks that her own paper will be
accepted.
Notice that (29b) cannot be analyzed as an instance of VP-deletion since the (embedded)
subject NP is elided. Furthermore, this covert subject cannot be pro since the sloppy reading
is available for this elided subject. Oku’s proposal is that in LF, the embedded subject NP of(29a) is copied to e.c. in (29b).6
Given Oku’s LF-copying approach to AE, let us examine (30b, c) following (30a):

6

See Saito (2007), Shinohara (2006), and Takahashi (2008) for supporting evidence for this
LF-copying analysis of AE.

-151- 151 -

2008

(30)

2012









a. Taroo-to-Hanako-ga
hon ni-satsu -zutsu -o katta.
Taroo-and-Hanako-nom book two-cl -dist -acc bought‘Taroo and Hanako bought two books each.’b. Jiroo-to-Yuuko-mo e .c. katta.
Jiroo-and-Yuuko-alsobought‘Jiroo and Yuuko also bought (two books (each)).’c. (?) Jiroo-mo e.c. katta.
Jiroo-alsobought‘Jiroo also bought (two books)’

In (30b-c), the object NP is elided, as indicated as e.c. The intended reading of (30a) is that
Taroo and Hanako each bought two books. In this context, (30b) can mean Jiroo and Yuuko
each also bought two books. Of significance is the fact that not only (30b) but also (30c) canfollow (30a) although it may be slightly degraded. (30c) can describe the situation in which
Jiroo also bought two books.
If the bold-faced underlined NP with the D-Op were copied to e.c. in (30c), the sentence
should have the LF representation with the D-Op movement in point, as illustrated in (31):7(31)[TP [EvP e [vP [ [Jiroo] D-Op1]-mo [VP [DistP t1 [NQ hon ni-satsu]-zutsu]-o katta]]]]______________|


By definition, the D-Op must be adjoined to a plural R-NP. However, Jiroo is singular, andthus, it should not be able to function as an R-NP. The fact that (30c) can follow (30a),therefore, indicates that (31) should not be the correct LF representation of (30c). Since a
cause of the problem lies in the D-Op movement, what is copied to e.c. in (30c) must be the
DistP without the D-Op. This is exactly what we obtain under LF-copying.
Under the Single Output Syntax model (Bablijik 1995, 2002), by the time the copying
operation is to take place in LF, the D-Op is already raised and adjoined to the R-NP. This inturn indicates that what is copied to e.c. in (30b) from (30a) is the DistP without the D-Op inquestion. Given the assumption that the D-Op movement is an instance of A-movement, inparallel to each-movement (Heim, Lasnik and May 1991), and that A-movement does notleave any trace (Lasnik 1999, Saito and Hoshi 2000), the LF representation of (30c) after theintended copying operation, must be as in (32):(32)
[TP [EvP e [vP Jiroo-mo [VP [DistP [NQ hon ni-satsu] -zutsu] -o katta]]]]Jiroo-also
book two-cl -dist -acc bought

7

I leave aside questions concerning the status of particles in AE in this paper. See Saito (2007) for
relevant discussion.

-152- 152 -On the Event Argument and Anti-Quantifier Zutsu in Japanese (Y. Miyamoto)

Under the current assumption that zutsu itself does not have any significant semantic import,(32) is then basically equated with (33):(33)[TP [EvP e [vP Jiroo-mo [VP [NQ hon ni-satsu] -o katta]]]]Jiroo-also
book two-cl -acc bought‘Jiroo also bought two books.’

As a result, even under the copying-based approach to AE, it is naturally expected that (30c)
can follow (30a), and it means that Jiroo also bought two books.
Accordingly, (30b) should have either of the LF representations given in (34a, b):8(34)

a. [TP [EvP e [vP Jiroo-to-Yuuko-mo [VP [DistP [NQ hon ni-satsu] -zutsu] -oJiroo-and-Yuuko-also
book two-cl -dist -acc
katta]]]] (-koto)bought (-fact)b. [TP [EvP e [vP [ [Jiroo-to-Yuuko] D] -mo [VP [DistP [NQ hon ni-satsu] -zutsu] -o[Jiroo-and-Yuuko-also
book two-cl -dist -acc
katta]]]] (-koto)
bought (-fact)(34a) should allow the reading that Jiroo and Yuuko also bought two books together whereas(34b) should yield the reading that Jiroo and Yuuko also bought two books each, due to thepresence of D, the base-generated covert each. The current proposal therefore predicts that
following (30a), (30b) can be interpreted either collectively or distributively. This prediction
is borne out. The collective reading in question becomes more salient if appropriate context is
given, such as the one in (35):(35)

Jiroo-to-Yuuko-mo
okane-oawaseteissyo-ni e.c. katta.
Jiroo-and-Yuuko-also money-acc putting together togetherbought‘Jiroo and Yuuko also bought (two books) together, putting their money together.’

The question to be raised now is whether the same copying operation is also responsible
for AE in subject position. This is the issue to be dealt with in Section 6.
6.

Argument Ellipsis of an NQ with Zutsu in Subject Position

The cases discussed in Section 5 are all accommodated under the LF-copying approach.
In this section, however, examining the availability of sloppy reading in cases involving an
NQ with zutsu in subject position, we will see that not only LF-copying but also PF-deletionis necessary in order to fully account for AE in Japanese. This leads to the suggestion that inprinciple, AE can be created by either PF-deletion or LF-copying: the “hybrid” hypothesis of
8

In Section 6, I will show that AE can also be obtained via PF-deletion in (30b).

-153- 153 -

2008

2012







AE.
Let us start with (36). Suppose that some student representatives and teachers are about
to have a meeting to decide who will bring what to the coming potluck party:9(36)

a. ??Tanaka-sensei-wa [[(jibun-no) gakusei futa-ri -zutsu -ga
Tanaka-teacher-top [[(self-gen student two-cl -dist -nom
suupu-to-sarada-o tsukuru]-to] omotteiru.
soup-and-salad-acc make -that think‘Prof. Tanaka thinks that two students each will make soup and salad.’tsukuru]-to] omotteiru.
b.??? Yamada-sensei-wa [[ e.c. sushi-to-dezaato-o
Yamada-teacher-top
sushi-and-dessert-acc make] -that think‘Prof. Yamada thinks that (two students (each)) will make sushi and dessert.’c.? / ?? Yamada-sensei-wa [[ e.c. dezaato-o tsukuru]-to] omotteiru.
Yamada-teacher-top
dessert-acc make] -that think‘Prof. Yamada thinks that (two students) will make dessert.’(36b) as well as (36c) can follow (36a) although the former two sentences are degraded, alongwith the latter.
Under the LF-copying approach to AE adopted in Section 5, (37) would be the LF
representation of (36b):(37)

Yamada-sensei-wa [CP [EvP e [vP [DistP [NQ gakusei futa-ri]-zutsu] -ga
Yamada-teacher-top
student two-cl -dist -nomsushi-to-dezaato-otsukuru]] -to] omotteiru
sushi-and-dessert-acc make-that think

Of importance here is the claim that what is copied in (37) is the DistP without the D-Op.
Thus, (37) should be equated with (38):(38)

Yamada-sensei-wa [CP [EvP e [vP [NQ gakusei futa-ri]-ga sushi-to-dezaato-o
Yamada-teacher-top
student two-cl -nom sushi-and-dessert-acc
tsukuru]]-to] omotteiru
make-that think

In (38), and thus (37), since the subject QP is structurally higher than the plural object, theformer necessarily takes scope over the latter given the assumption that Japanese exhibits
9

There is dialectal/idiolectal variation among native speakers of Japanese about their judgment of(36a–c), (42a–c), and (47a–c). I leave this issue for future research to examine why such variation
exists.

-154- 154 -On the Event Argument and Anti-Quantifier Zutsu in Japanese (Y. Miyamoto)scope rigidity (Kuroda 1971, Hoji 1985). This scope relation between the two QPs leads toone of the possible, though not salient, readings available in (36b); that is, Prof. Yamada
thinks that two students (of his) will make sushi and dessert.
Importantly, (36b) also permits the reading that Prof. Yamada thinks that two students(of his) will make sushi, and another two students (of his) will make dessert. In order toobtain this reading, parallel to (36a), we need the D-Op in (36b). Under the current proposal,
given the assumption that covert each, dubbed as D, can directly adjoin to a plural element, it
is not unnatural that in (36b), the event argument is directly adjoined by D, and the DistP
without the D-Op is copied to e.c., as shown in (39):(39)

Yamada-sensei-wa [CP [EvP [ [e] D] [vP [NQ gakusei futa-ri]-ga
Yamada-teacher-top
student two-cl -nom
[ [sushi-to-dezaato] D]-o tsukuru]] -to] omotteiru[ [sushi-and-dessert-acc make-that think

Notice that in the relevant respect, this LF representation is basically the same as the one in(40b), which is the LF representation of (11a), repeated here as (40a),(40)a. ??[TP [EvP e [vP gakusei futa-ri -zutsu -ga [VP furansugo-to-doitsugo-ostudent two-cl -dist -nom
French-and-German-acc
benkyooshiteiru]]]] (-koto)
be studying(-fact)‘Two students each are studying French and German.’b. [TP [EvP [[e] D-Op1] [vP [DistP t1 [NQ gakusei futa-ri]-zutsu]-ga
____________|[VP [ [furansugo-to-doitsugo] D]-o benkyooshiteiru]]]] (-koto)

Then, it is not surprising that (39) realizes the type of reading available with (36a) and (40a):(36b) means that a group of two students would make sushi and another group of two students
would make dessert. In addition, the slight marginality of (36b) might also be expected since
the apparent distribution of the students over sushi and dessert is in fact “indirect” (seeSection 4).
In contrast to (36b), (36c) following (36a) can describe the situation in which Prof.
Yamada thinks that two students will make some dessert. Under the LF-copying, (41) is the
LF-representation of (36c):(41)

Yamada-sensei-wa [CP [TP [EvP e [vP [DistP [NQ gakusei futa-ri]-zutsu] -ga
Yamada-teacher-top
student two-cl -dist -nom
[VP dezaato-o tsukuru]]]] -to] omotteiru[VP dessert-acc make-that think

This representation correctly substantiates the reading in point.

-155- 155 -

2008

2012







To summarize the discussion so far, I have shown that in addition to the cases discussed
in Section 5, AE of a subject NP containing an NQ with zutsu can also make use of
LF-copying. Thus, the examples examined so far can be taken as supporting evidence for the
LF-copying approach to AE in Japanese.
However, there are cases where PF-deletion is necessitated. First, recall from thediscussion in Section 4 that when the object R-NP is scrambled and c-commands the subject
NP with the NQ with zutsu, the sentence becomes fully acceptable. Accordingly, it is not
surprising that no significant deviance results in (36a) if the scrambling of the object NP takes
place, as shown in (42a). However, although (36c) and (42c) do not exhibit any grammaticalcontrast, it comes as a surprise that (36b) appears to improve, following (42a), as shown in(42b):(42)

a. Tanaka-sensei-wa [[suupu-to-sarada-o1 [(jibun -no) gakusei
Tanaka-teacher-top [[soup-and-salad-acc [(self -gen student
futa-ri-zutsu -ga t1 tsukuru]] -to] omotteiru.
two-cl -dist -nom make-that think‘Prof. Tanaka thinks that soup and salad, two students each will make.’tsukuru]-to] omotteiru.
b. ? Yamada-sensei-wa [[sushi-to-dezaato-o
Yamada-teacher-top [[sushi-and-dessert-acc make -that think‘Prof. Yamada thinks that (two students (each)) will make sushi and dessert.’c.? / ?? Yamada-sensei-wa [[dezaato-o tsukuru]-to] omotteiru.
Yamada-teacher-top [ dessert-acc make -that think‘Prof. Yamada thinks that (two students) will make dessert.’

Under the LF-copying approach to AE, the contrast between (36b) and (42b), if it isgenuine, is very difficult, if not impossible to explain since the copying of the subject NP toe.c. in (42b) should yield the LF-representation in (38) above, given the assumption that nostring vacuous scrambling is allowed (Hoji 1985) and the object NP stays in situ.
Accordingly, no contrast between (36b) and (42b) is expected, contrary to fact.
In contrast, under the PF-deletion approach, the LF-representation of (42b) ought to be
distinct from the one in (38). Given the reasonable assumption that PF-deletion requires
identity in PF, (36b), which follows (36a), should have the LF representation in (38) above,
while the LF representation of (42b), which is preceded by (42a), should be as in (43):(43)

Yamada-sensei-wa [CP [TP [EvP e [vP sushi-to-dezaato-o [vP [DistP D-Op
____________________|[NQ gakusei futa-ri]-zutsu]-ga tsukuru]]]] -to] omotteiru

Crucially, the object NP has been scrambled, which makes it an appropriate R-NP for the-156- 156 -On the Event Argument and Anti-Quantifier Zutsu in Japanese (Y. Miyamoto)

D-Op in overt syntax. With the upward movement of the D-Op to the scrambled object NP,
the sentence is fully acceptable, as predicted, parallel to (11b), repeated here as (44a), with thederivational steps in (44b):(44)a. [TP [EvP e [vP furansugo-to-doitsugo-o1 [vP gakusei futa-ri -zutsu -ga [VP t1
French-and-German-acc
student two-cl -dist -nombenkyooshiteiru]]]]]] (-koto)
be studying (-fact)‘Two students each are studying French and German.’b. [TP [EvP e [vP [ [furansugo-to-doitsugo] D-Op2]-o1 [vP [DistP t2 [NQ gakusei
_____________|
futa-ri]-zutsu]-ga [VP t1 benkyooshiteiru]]]]] (-koto)

Turning to (42c) in relation to (36c), however, I find no significant contrast between
these two examples. The fact that the reading in question is permitted in (42c) follows fromthe LF representation in (41), repeated here as (45), under LF-copying:(45)

Yamada-sensei-wa [CP [TP [EvP e [vP [DistP [NQ gakusei futa-ri]-zutsu] -ga
Yamada-teacher-top
student two-cl -dist -nom
[VP dezaato-o tsukuru]]]] -to] omotteiru[VP dessert-acc make-that think

Of importance is the fact that there is no potential R-NP c-commanding the D-Op in (46),which would be the LF-representation of (42c) under PF-deletion:(46)

Yamada-sensei-wa [CP [TP [EvP e [vP dezaato-o [vP [DistP D-Op [NQ gakusei
_______________|
futa-ri] -zutsu]-ga tsukuru]]]] -to] omotteiru

The D-Op cannot be adjoined to the scrambled object NP since it is singular. In addition,
there is an event consisting of one sub-event of making dessert in (42c), and thus, the event
argument is not a potential R-NP in (43), either.
In short, it is not clear how the contrasts between (36a–c) and (42a–c) with respect toreadings available in (36b, c) and (42b, c) can be accommodated without adopting both
LF-copying and PF-deletion. I therefore take these data as supporting evidence for the
hypothesis that not only LF-copying but also PF-deletion must be an option available for AE
in Japanese: the hybrid hypothesis for AE in Japanese.
Second, I have shown in Section 3 that there is a contrast between stage-level andindividual-level predicates with respect to the licensing of an NQ with zutsu contained in thesubject NP. When the predicate is individual-level, the object NP ought to be scrambled to a
position c-commanding the subject so that it can act as the R-NP. Bearing this point in mind,
let’s consider (47a–c):-157- 157 -

2008

(47)

2012









a. ? Tanaka-sensei-wa [[doitsugo-to-furansugo-o1 [(jibun-no) gakusei
Tanaka-teacher-top [[German-and-French-acc [(self-gen student
futa-ri-zutsu -ga t1 yoku shitteiru]]-to] omotteiru.
two-cl -dist -nom
well know-that think‘Prof. Tanaka thinks that German and French, two students each know well.’b. ? Yamada-sensei-wa [[supeingo-to-itariago-o yoku shitteiru] -to] omotteiru.
Yamada-teacher-top [[Spanish-and-Italian-acc well know-that think‘Prof. Yamada thinks that (two students (each)) know Spanish and Italian well.’c.? / ?? Yamada-sensei-wa [[supeingo-o yoku shitteiru] -to] omotteiru.
Yamada-teacher-top [[Spanish-acc well know-that think‘Prof. Yamada thinks that (two students) know Spanish well.’(47a) means Prof. Tanaka thinks that two students (of his) know German well and anothertwo students (of his) know French well. Of significance is the fact that following (47a), (47b)can mean that Prof. Yamada thinks that two students (of his) know Spanish well and anothertwo students (of his) know Italian well.
Under the LF-copying option, the LF representation of (47b) should be as in (48):(48)

Yamada-sensei-wa [CP [TP [DistP [NQ gakusei futa-ri]-zutsu] -ga
Yamada-teacher-top
student two-cl -dist -nomsupeingo-to-itariago-o yoku shitteiru] -to] omotteiru
Spanish-and-Italian-acc well know-that think(48) allows the reading that Prof. Yamada thinks that each of the two students know bothSpanish and Italian well. However, this LF representation does not permit the reading thatassociates two students (of his) with Spanish and another two students (of his) with Italian.
The fact that this particular reading is available in (47b), therefore, indicates that in thisexample, the D-Op is present and the object NP is situated in a position c-commanding the
subject QP. This state of affairs is exactly what we obtain under the PF-deletion option. The
PF-parallelism requires the LF-representation of (47b) to be as in (49):(49)

Yamada-sensei-wa [[supeingo-to-itariago-o [[DistP D-Op [NQ gakusei
___________________|
futa-ri] -zutsu]-ga yoku shitteiru]]-to] omotteiru

The adjunction of the D-Op to the scrambled object QP makes the intended reading availablein (47b), parallel to (47a).
Yet, the fact that (47c) can also follow (47a) must be dealt with in a different way.
Notice that under the PF-deletion option, (47c) would have the LF-representation given in-158- 158 -On the Event Argument and Anti-Quantifier Zutsu in Japanese (Y. Miyamoto)

(50):
(50)

Yamada-sensei-wa [[supeingo-o [[DistP D-Op [NQ gakusei futa-ri]-zutsu]-ga
_____________|
yoku shitteiru]]-to] omotteiru

The problem is that since the scrambled object NP is singular, it cannot act as the R-NP for
the D-Op. This means that the D-Op in question cannot be properly licensed in (50).
Accordingly, the PF-deletion option is not the one to be adopted in (47c). (47c) must,
therefore, employ the LF-copying option. Under the LF-copying option, (47c) will have (51)as its LF-representation.
(51)

Yamada-sensei-wa [[[DistP [NQ gakusei futa-ri]-zutsu] -ga supeingo-o
Yamada-teacher-top
student two-cl -dist -nom Spanish-acc
yoku shitteiru] -to] omotteiru
well know-that think

Accordingly, (47c) can be interpreted as Prof. Yamada thinking that two students of his know
Spanish.
To summarize, I have suggested that in principle, both LF-copying and PF-deletion are
options available for AE in Japanese. However, due to independent factors such as thelicensing of the D-Op, these two options are not always equally applicable. In the cases
discussed in this section, when there is no potential candidate for an R-NP c-commanding theD-Op, PF-deletion cannot be chosen. Accordingly, the LF-copying option is forced.
Recall that I have shown in Section 5 that (30b), repeated here as (52b), involves
LF-copying. However, under the present hybrid hypothesis, we now have another option; thisexample can also make use of PF-deletion, observing PF-identity with (30a), repeated here as(52a):(52)

a. Taroo-to-Hanako-ga
hon ni-satsu -zutsu -o katta.
Taroo-and-Hanako-nom book two-cl -dist -acc bought‘Taroo and Hanako bought two books each.’b. Jiroo-to-Yuuko-mo e.c. katta.
Jiroo-and-Yuuko-alsobought‘Jiroo and Yuuko also bought e.c.’Under the PF-deletion option, the LF-representation of (52b) is as shown in (53):(53)[TP [EvP e [vP [ [Jiroo-to-Yuuko] D-Op1]-mo [VP [DistP t1 [NQ hon
________________|
ni-satsu]-zutsu]-o katta]]]] (-koto)-159- 159 -

2008

2012









Since the NP Jiroo-to-Yuuko is plural, nothing would go wrong with the D-Op movement in(53). (52b) is thus one case in which either of the two options, LF-copying or PF-deletion, canbe selected, due to there being no intervening factor prohibiting either of the options fromapplying.
7.

Concluding Remarks

This paper has shown that the distributive affix zutsu and its Korean counterpart ssik arelicensed by a plural NP c-commanding an NP containing an NQ with the affix in point inovert syntax. In order to capture this structural requirement, I have proposed an analysis of theaffix in point, based on the (distributive) operator-movement. The proposed analysis enables
us to derive the structural requirement in point from the general ban on downward movement.
Furthermore, based on the contrast between stage-level and individual-level predicates inlicensing the affix in point in subject position, I have argued that the event argument, which
occupies SPEC EvP when the predicate is stage-level, can act as an R-NP in overt syntax.
This paper has provided further support for the hypothesis that the event argument can act asan R-NP (Balusu 2006, 2010). However, I have suggested two modifications to his proposal.
First, the event argument can, but not always, act as an R-NP. Second, the distributive
operation involves D-Op movement in syntax.
Based on this Op-based approach to the distributive affix zutsu, I examined cases where
an NP containing an NQ with zutsu is elided. I have suggested that in principle, so-calledargument ellipsis results from either LF-copying or PF-deletion. However, due to independent
reasons such as the licensing of the distributive operator, these two options are not always
equally available.
This paper leaves significant questions open for future research such as why English
binominal each cannot take the event argument as the R-NP, as observed in (54) (Safir andStowell 1988):(54) * Two students each read LGB and Barriers.
Given the assumption that the event argument is uniformly available across natural languages,
it should also be available in English. One way to deal with this dichotomy is provided in
Balusu’s (2006) proposal on duplicated numerals in Telugu, certainly tied to a question ofwhether the current proposal extends to duplicated numerals in Dravidian languages such as
Telugu (Balusu 2006, 2010): The duplicated numeral projects DistP whose SPEC is occupiedby the D-Op. In spite of such unresolved issues to this point, my intention is to broaden future
research relating to distributive affixes and their relation to AE in East Asian languages.

-160- 160 -On the Event Argument and Anti-Quantifier Zutsu in Japanese (Y. Miyamoto)

References
Ahn, S.-H. (1990) Korean Quantification and Universal Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, University ofConnecticut, Storrs.
Balusu, R. (2006) “Distributive Reduplication in Telugu,” NELS 36, 39–52.
Balusu, R. (2010) “Semantics of Reduplicative Numerals in Telugu,” paper presented at the 7thWorkshop of the International Research Project on Comparative Syntax and Language
Acquisition, Nanzan University, January 2010.
Basilico, D. (2003) “The Topic of Small Clauses,” Linguistic Inquiry 34, 1–35.
Bobaljik, J. D. (1995) Morphosyntax: The Syntax of Verbal Inflection, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Bobaljik, J. D. (2002) “A-chains at the PF-interface: Copies and “Covert” Movement,” Natural
Language & Linguistic Theory 20, 197–267.
Choe, J.-W. (1987) Anti-Quantifiers and a Theory of Distributivity, Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Gil, D. (1990) “Markers of Distributivity in Japanese and Korean.” In H. Hoji, ed., Japanese/Korean
Linguistics 1, CSLI, Stanford, 385–392.
Ha, S. (2008) “The VP Spell-out Domains and Scope Rigidity,” Toronto Working Papers in
Linguistics 28, 57–70.
Harley, H. (1995) Subjects, Events and Licensing, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Heim, I. and A. Kratzer (1998) Semantics in Generative Grammar, Blackwell, Malden.
Heim, I., H. Lasnik and R. May (1991) “Reciprocity and Plurality,” Linguistic Inquiry 22, 63–101.
Hoji, H. (1985) Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
Kratzer, A. (1995) “Stage-level and Individual-level Predicates.” In G. Carlson and F. Pelletier, eds.,
The Generic Book, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 125–175.
Krifka, M. (1992) “Thematic Relations as Links between Nominal Reference and Temporal
Constitution.” In I. Sag and A. Szabolcsi, eds., Lexical Matters, CSLI, Stanford, 29–53.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1971) “Remarks on the Notion of Subject with Reference to Words like Also, Even, orOnly: Part II,” Annual Bulletin, vol.4: Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics,
Tokyo University, 127–152.
Lasersohn, P. (1995) Plurality, Conjunction, and Events, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Lasnik, H. (1999) “Chains of Arguments.” In S. D. Epstein and N. Hornstein, eds., Working
Minimalism, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 189–215.
May, R. (1977) Grammar of Quantification, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
May, R. (1985) Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Oh, S.-R. (2006) Plurality Markers across Languages, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut,
Storrs.
Oku, S. (1998) A Theory of Selection and Reconstruction in the Minimalist Perspective, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Safir, K. and T. Stowell (1988) “Binominal each,” NELS 18, 426–450.
Saito, M. (2007) “Notes on East Asian Language Ellipsis,” Language Research 43, 203–227.
Saito, M. and H. Hoshi (2000) “Japanese Light Verb Constructions and the Minimalist Program.” In
R. Martin et al., eds., Step by Step: Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 261–295.
Shinohara, M. (2006) “On some Differences between the Major Deletion Phenomena and JapaneseArgument Ellipsis,” unpublished ms., Nanzan University.
Sohn, K.-W. (1995) Negative Polarity Items, Scope and Economy, Ph.D. dissertation, University ofConnecticut, Storrs.

-161- 161 -

2008

2012









Takahashi, D. (2008) “Noun Phrase Ellipsis.” In S. Miyagawa and M. Saito, eds., The Oxford
Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 394–422.
Travis, L. (1994) “Event Phrase and a Theory of Functional Categories,” Proceedings of the 1994
Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Toronto Working Papers in
Linguistics, 559–570.

-162- 162 -THREE TYPES OF THE “OVERGENERATED NO”
IN THE ACQUISITION OF JAPANESE NOUN PHRASES *Keiko Murasugi1,2, Tomomi Nakatani1 and Chisato Fuji
Nanzan University1 and University of Connecticut2

1.

Introduction

It is very well known that Japanese-speaking children around ages one to four
overgenerate no between the sentential modifier and the head NP, as shown in (1).
(1)

a. howasi
ookii * nochopstick bigNOhowasi (= ohasi)
chopstick(2;1)‘chopsticks, the big ones, chopsticks’
b. maarui * noround NO 

(Nagano 1960)

unti (2;0)
poop

‘a round poop’c. Yuta-ga
Yuta-Nom(Yokoyama 1990)

asyon-deru *no
playing-isNO       

yatyu
thing

wa kore, kore
Top this this(Yuta 2;3)‘The thing that Yuta (I) is playing with is this (train).’In (1a) and (1b), children insert no between the adjective (e.g., ookii (big) and marui (round))and the head nominal (e.g., howasi (chopsticks) and unti (poop)) at around two years of age.
Later, at two to four years of age, as in (1c), Japanese-speaking children insert no between thesentential modifier Yuta ga asyon-deru (Yuta is playing) and the head nominal yatyu (thing).
In adult Japanese, there are mainly three types of no.

* This is a revised version of the paper we presented at JK 19 (2009) at the University of Hawaii. We
would like to thank the organizers, participants and the anonymous reviewers of JK 19, and scholars
involved in the activities of Center for Linguistics at Nanzan University, especially Michiya Kawai,
Tomoko Hashimoto, Mamoru Saito, Koji Sugisaki, and Daiko Takahashi, for valuable discussions on
the topic discussed in this paper. The research presented here was supported in part by Nanzan
University Pache Research Grant I-A (2011), JSPS Grant-in-Aid at Nanzan University (#23520529),
and National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics (Collaborative Research Project on
Linguistic Variations within the Confines of the Language Faculty: A Study in Japanese First
Language Acquisition and Parametric Syntax).

-163-

2008

(2)

2012

a. [Yamada]



no
Gen

hon
book







(Genitive Case marker)‘Yamada’s book’
b. akaired (+present)noone(Pronoun)‘the red one’c. Emi-ga
hazimeterobusutaa-o
Emi-Nom for the first time lobster-Acc
da(Complementizer)
Copulatabe-ta no
wa Bosuton deateComp Top Boston in‘It is in Boston that Emi ate a lobster for the first time.’(2a) is the genitive Case marker, which roughly corresponds to ’s or of in English. (2b) is apronoun, which roughly corresponds to one in English. A complementizer in (2c) is the headof the presuppositional phrase in the cleft sentence, which corresponds to that in English.
In the history of Japanese acquisition, three contradictory analyses, the Pronoun
Hypothesis, the Genitive Case Hypothesis, and the Complementizer Hypothesis, have been
proposed regarding the syntactic status of the overgenerated no. Accordingly, the age children
overgenerate no is contradictory: Some say it happens when children are one year old (e.g.,
Nagano 1960), but some say it lasts until four years old (e.g., Murasugi 1991).
In this paper, mainly based on our longitudinal study with a Japanese-speaking child,
Yuta, and the corpus analysis of CHILDES (Sumihare and Jun), we argue that the
mysteriously long overgeneration phenomenon of no, in fact, stems from three distinct
sources, as proposed by Murasugi, Nakatani and Fuji (2009). We argue that the mysterious“overgeneration of no” is not a single phenomenon in Japanese acquisition, and show thatthree contradictory hypotheses (i.e., Pronoun, Genitive Case, and Complementizer) proposedin the past acquisition researches are basically all correct. First, a pronoun no is used due tothe limit in production at the two-word stage. Second, the genitive Case marker no is inserted
because of the miscategorization of adjectives as nominals. Third, a complementizer no isovergenerated due to the parameterization in the structure of relative clauses. The
overgeneration of no, which looks like a single phenomenon, is reanalyzed as a trihedralphenomenon, and each face represents one of the crucial developmental stages in language
acquisition.
2.

The Complementizer Hypothesis: Relative Clause Parameter (Murasugi 1991)

Murasugi (1991), based on her longitudinal and experimental study withJapanese-speaking children at two to four years of age, proposes that the overgenerated no is a-164- 164 -Three Types of the “Overgenerated No” (K. Murasugi, T. Nakatani and C. Fuji)

complementizer. According to her analysis, a structure of a sentential modifier isparameterized; either CP or TP depending on the languages. Murasugi argues that sentential
modifiers in adult Japanese (and Korean) are TPs, unlike CP relatives in English. However,Japanese-speaking children initially hypothesize that Japanese relative clauses are CPs, andovergenerate a complementizer between the sentential modifier and the head nominal.
Children’s first complex NPs are found after two years of age, and they are usually afixed expression without overgeneration (Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004). Our subject Yuta’s
first complex NPs were also fixed expressions. The relevant examples are shown in (3).
(3)

a. Tottan-ga
katte kure-ta
father-Nom buy gave

purezento
presentda
Copula

yo
Int

(2;0)

‘(This is) the present that my father bought (for me).
b. Kore, Yuki-tyan-ga
this, Yuki-tyan-Nom

kure-tagave

purezento
present

na
Copula

no
Int

(2;0)

‘This is the present that Yuki-tyan gave (to me).’In (3), the verbs were limited to katte kureru (buy and give) and kureru (give) only. The head
NP was also limited to the NP, purezento (present).
Later, some children overgenerate no on sentential modifiers. Yuta started toovergenerate no productively not only in complex NPs as in (4a) and (4b), but also after
adjectives as in (4c), after 2;2.
(4)

a. Kare-teru
wither-is

 

* no
NO

hana daflower Copula

yo
Int

(2;2)

‘(I have) a withered flower.’b. Yuta-ga
Yuta-Nomasyon-deru *no
playing-isNO   

yatyu
thing

wa
Top

kore,
this

kore
this

(2;3)

‘The thing that Yuta (I) is playing with is this (train).’c. Kore nagai *no
this
long
NO

yatyu
one

da
Copula

ne
Int

(2;3)

‘This is a long one.’
In (4a), Yuta inserted no between the modifier kare-teru (is withered) and the head nominal
hana (flower). Similarly, in (4b), Yuta (playing with a train in front of the box with thepicture of the train, and comparing the toy and the picture of it), overgenerated no between thesentential modifier Yuta-ga asyon-deru and the head NP, yatyu. In (4c), he overgenerated noafter the adjective nagai (long).

-165- 165 -

2008

2012









Murasugi (1991) reports that children at around two to four years of age overgenerate acomplementizer no between the head NP and all types of sentential modifiers, as exemplified
in (5).
(5)a. tigau * nodiffer NO

outi (3;0)
house‘the different house’b. Emi-tyan-ga
Emi-tyan-Nom

kai-ta * nodrew NOsinderera (2;11-4;2)
Cinderella’     ‘the Cinderella that Emi drew’c. ookii * no
big
NO

tako
(2;11-4;2)octopus‘a big octopus’(Murasugi 1991)

In (5a), no is inserted between the inflected verb, tigau (differ) and the head nominal, outi
(house), and in (5b), it is inserted between the sentential modifier and the head nominal. In(5c), no is overgenerated after the adjective, ookii (big), as well.
Crucially, however, she reports that those children, who overgenerated no, sometimes
undergenerated the genitive Case marker on PPs, as in (6), although they can correctly insert
it between two NPs, as in (7).
(6)

Tokyo

made []to*(Gen)

basu
bus

(3;2)

‘the bus to Tokyo’(7)(Murasugi 1991)

a. Emi-nohon (Emi 2;9)Emi-Gen book
‘Emi’s book’
b. megane-no
glasses-Gen

ozityanman(Miki 2;4)‘the man with eye glasses’(Murasugi 1991)

Thus, the overgeneration takes place when the genitive Case marking is not fully acquired.
One piece of direct empirical evidence for the Complementizer Hypothesis was found in
Toyama dialect in Japanese as in (8a) and Korean as in (8b).

-166- 166 -Three Types of the “Overgenerated No” (K. Murasugi, T. Nakatani and C. Fuji)(8)a. Anpanman(a character)tui-toru* ga
attaching-is GA

koppu
cup

(Ken 2;11)‘the cup which is pictured with “Anpanman”’
b. Acessi otopai
tha-nun *kes
uncle motorcycle riding-is KES(Murasugi 1991)

soli
yasound is(2-3 years old)

‘Lit. (This) is the sound that a man is riding a motorcycle.’(Kim 1987)

The overgenerated item is a complementizer, for instance, ga in Toyama dialect, and kes in
Korean, but not the genitive Case marker (no in Toyama dialect nor uy in Korean).
Thus, not only Japanese-speaking children but also Korean-speaking children initiallyhypothesize that their relative clauses are CPs, and overgenerate a complementizer between
the sentential modifier and the head nominal.
Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004), however, argue that the Complementizer Hypothesis
alone cannot fully explain the overgeneration phenomenon of no. In fact, the overgenerationof no is observed with very young children, even at around the age of one, when they start
producing two-word utterances. Crucially, then, not only T or C related items, but also, eventhe genitive Case marker is not produced. Murasugi and Hashimoto point out that it is very
unlikely that the same type of overgeneration lasts for four years, and conclude that there are
two types of overgeneration of no: A pronoun and a complementizer.
3.
3.

The Pronoun Hypothesis in Addition to the Complementizer Analysis (Nagano
1960, Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004, 2006)

The Pronoun Hypothesis was in fact originally proposed by Nagano (1960) fifty years
ago. His argument is very simple and clear: The overgenerated no cannot be the genitive Case
marker, because the overgeneration takes place when there is no genitive Case marker foundin the child production, but only pronoun no is produced. Examples in (9) are cited from
Nagano (1960).
(9)a. howasi
chopstickookii *no
big
one
 

howasi (= ohasi) (2;1)
chopstick‘chopsticks, the big ones, chopsticks’
b. Amuna (= Harumi)

tittyai * nosmall one

Amuna

‘Harumi, the small one, Harumi’(2;1)(Nagano 1960)

In (9a) and (9b), no looks like to be erroneously inserted between the adjective (e.g., ookii(big) and tiisai (small)) and the NP (e.g., howasi, which is ohasi (chopsticks) and Amuna,which is Harumi) at 2;1. The overgeneration in question appears just after the pronoun no-167- 167 -

2008

2012









starts to be correctly produced at 2;1, as in (10), but before the genitive Case marking is fullyacquired, as in (11).
(10)

a. ookii no
big
one

(2;1)

‘the big one (= bus)’
b. tittyai
small

no
one

(2;1)

‘the small one (= leaf)’(11)(Nagano 1960)

ke… mama[]ke, mama[]hair Mommy *(Gen) hair Mommy *(Gen)ke, mama(2;0)
hair Mommy‘hair…Mommy’s hair, Mommy’s hair, Mommy’(Nagano 1960)

In (11), the child omitted the genitive Case marker no, although it should be inserted between
mama (Mommy) and ke (hair) in the adult grammar. It is only one month later, at 2;2, that thegenitive Case marker appears in the natural production, as shown in (12).
(12)

Papa-nobuton (= zubon)
Daddy-Gen pants(2;2)‘Daddy’s pants’(Nagano 1960)

The parallel developmental stage was observed by Murasugi and Hashimoto’s (2004)
longitudinal study with Akkun, and our longitudinal study with Yuta. Both subjects started
overgenerating no before the genitive Case marker was inserted between NPs.
(13)

a. Akai
red

no
one

at-ta
(2;3)
there-was‘(I) found the red one’b. Akkun

no. Akkun [] ohuton
one.
bed

(2;3-2;5)‘(This is) Akkun’s. Akkun(’s) bed.’(Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004)

Furthermore, both Akkun and Yuta put a brief pause between the NP headed by the
pronoun no and the referential NP. (14) shows Akkun’s data taken from Murasugi and
Hashimoto (2004).

-168- 168 -Three Types of the “Overgenerated No” (K. Murasugi, T. Nakatani and C. Fuji)(14)

a. Akkuntiityainosmall-is one

konkonkon
hammer(2;4)‘Akkun’s (/My) small hammer’b. [Akkun //pause// [tiityai no] //pause// konkonkon]
They argue that the utterance consists of two parts (i.e., tiityai no (small one) and konkonkon(hammer)), and this is very different from the overgeneration of a complementizer.
Similarly, the subject we examined in the present study, Yuta, started overgenerating noat around 1;10, when he just started combining two words in the utterances. An example isgiven in (15).
(15)

a. Hon, atarasii
book new

no,
one

hon
book

da
(1;10)
Copula‘a book, a new one, (this is) a book’
b. [hon //pause// [atarasii no] //pause// hon da]
The analysis of Praat1 clearly shows that there is a pause between no and the reference
NP, thereby confirming Murasugi and Hashimoto’s (2004) observation.
Figure 1: A Pause Found between No and the Referential NP
pronoun_mov_mono
2.3177259

2.79506207

500
400
300
200
75
hon

atarasii nohon da0.8025

3.5Time (s)In Figure 1, the pitch contour shows that there is a pause of 0.48 seconds between no and thereferential NP, hon (a book). Thus, this result indicates that the utterance consists of twoparts.
In contrast, as for the overgeneration of a complementizer given in (4b) found after two
years of age, there is no pause between no and the head NP.

1Praat is a program for doing phonetic analyses and sound manipulations (Boersma and Weenink2009).

-169- 169 -20122008





Figure 2: No Pause Found between No and the Head NP with the Overgeneration of a
Figure 2: Complementizer
6.33160622

comp_asyonderu_mov_mono
7.18130213

500
400
300
200
75
Yuta gaasyonderu no yatyu

wa

kore

kore

5.678

8.53
Time (s)The Praat analysis in Figure 2 indicates that there is no separation of any kind, and asyonderu(ashon-deru) no yatyu is produced as a unit.
Hence, Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004, 2006) argue that Nagano’s (1960) Pronoun
Hypothesis is supported, and the overgenerated no at the age of one and early age of two is apronoun. They analyze that this no is, in fact, not an error, but reflects the production strategy
of very young children to combine two elements. When children cannot create themodification structure, they produce an NP headed by the pronoun no (one) first, to provide aframe for an NP, and the modifier, or the head nominal is realized as the second independent
NP. Children use this strategy since the genitive Case marker is not yet acquired at the
beginning of the two-word stage. Murasugi (2009) further proposes that this stage reflects theearliest morphological realization of the operation of merger, and that the onset of the merger
starts with the phrases headed by the smaller category (no (one) as N) with less semantic
content. This hypothesis holds as there is a pause between the pronoun no and the second NP.
The argument given so far shows that there are at least two sources for the apparently
same “overgeneration” phenomenon. The one observed in ages one and two is a pronoun, andthe other observed in ages two through four is a complementizer.
However, another empirical problem arises. No is overgenerated when children havealready acquired the genitive Case marker, have no problem in combining two elements, andproduce no relative clauses. The mysterious no associated with those characteristics is
exemplified in (16).
(16)

a. atarasii * no
new
NO

kami
paper

(Yuta 1;11)

gohan
rice

(Yuta 2;0)‘a new paper’
b. siroi * nowhite NO
‘white rice’-170- 170 -Three Types of the “Overgenerated No” (K. Murasugi, T. Nakatani and C. Fuji)

c. Tiisai * no
small
NO

buubuucartoottapassedyo
Int(Sumihare 1;11)‘A small car passed.’
Crucially, the overgeneration is found after the two-word stage, at around the age of two, withlimited adjectives such as color, size, shape, and state.
At this mysterious stage, the genitive Case marker between two NPs is productively andcorrectly used. For example, as in (17), Yuta started to produce the genitive Case marker
between NPs at 1;11, and Sumihare started at 2;0.
(17)

a. Ko otoosan-no hanasi dayothis father-Gen story Copula Int(Yuta 1;11)‘This is a story of father.’b. Ringo-no
apple-Gen

ozityan-ga…
man-Nom(Sumihare 2;0)‘The man (who sells) apples is…’
Praat analysis reveals that unlike the case of a pronoun, there is no pause found between no
and the NP following it. In Figure 3, no separation has been made between siroi no (whiteone) and gohan (rice), and they are produced as a unit.
Figure 3: No Pause Found between No and the Head NP with the Mysterious Overgeneration
Figure 3: of No
genitive_siroi_mov_mono
13.1916106
500
400
300
200
75
siroi no gohansiroi no gohan

11.27

14.36
Time (s)The facts shown above cannot be explained by the Complementizer Hypothesis either.
This mysterious no is produced by children who have not acquired complex NPs yet, and thecleft sentences are hardly observed. Moreover, as noted above, the overgeneration is foundonly with the present-tensed adjectives of color, size, and state.
In the next section, we argue that children, at around the age of two, have difficulties inacquiring “the category of adjectives,” and some adjectives are treated as nominals, and some,as verbs. Those “nominal-like adjectives” never inflect with tense, and children, who alreadyknow the genitive Case marker insertion between the nominal projections, correctly insert thegenitive Case marker between the “nominal-like adjectives” and the head nominal. This
would be the mysterious stage of overgeneration of no found before a relative clause is-171- 171 -

2008

2012







acquired. (See Murasugi (2009) for details.)
4.

The Genitive Case Marker Hypothesis

The Genitive Case Marker Hypothesis has been proposed by many researchers in thepast fifty years (Iwabuchi and Muraishi 1968, Harada 1980, 1984, Clancy 1985, Yokoyama
1990, Ito 1998, among others). Among those, Yokoyama’s (1990) generalization is quite
important. He argues that the erroneous no is a genitive Case marker, and it is overgenerated
only with the adjectives referring to color, size, and shape (e.g., akai (red), ookii (big), maarui(round)), but never with other adjectives (e.g., abunai (dangerous), yasasii (kind)), as shownin (18).
(18)

a. ookii * nobigNOsakana
fish

(1;8)

unti
poop

(2;0)

‘a big fish’b. maarui * noround NO‘a round poop’
Yokoyama’s apparently curious generalization is further confirmed by Murasugi and
Hashimoto (2004). They find that the adjectives of color, size, and shape do not inflect withtense, but appear only in present-tense forms.
This generalization is further supported by our longitudinal study with Yuta and also by
our corpus analysis of Sumihare. The overgeneration occurs only with the adjectives whichrefer to color, size, shape, and state, but it never occurs with such adjectives as itai (ispainful), omoi (is heavy), or kowai (is scary), which only appear in the predicative form withtense (i.e., present and past) but never in the prenominal form. As these adjectives neverappear in the prenominal form, there is naturally no chance that the overgeneration shouldtake place. Rather, these adjectives are not associated with the overgenerated no, and behave
like verbs, as in (19).
(19)

a. Oisii,delicious

kore.
this

Oisii,
delicious

kore
this

(Yuta 1;10)‘This is delicious.’b. Koko babatii
here dirty

yo
Int

ne
Int

(Sumihare 2;0)‘(It is) dirty here.’-172- 172 -Three Types of the “Overgenerated No” (K. Murasugi, T. Nakatani and C. Fuji)c. Okaatyan pompo
itai
Mommy onomatopoeia acheno
Q

(Sumihare 2;0)

‘Mommy, is (your) stomach aching?’
In (19), the adjectives, oisii (delicious), babatii (dirty), itai (painful), are used as predicates,
conjugating with tense as shown in Table 1 and Table 2.
Table 1 shows that the past-tense forms of nominal-like adjectives are produced
relatively late, but those of verb-like adjectives are produced relatively early in the case of
Yuta.
Table 1: The Age of the First Appearance of the Present-/Past-tense Forms of Adjectives by
Table 1: Yuta
Nominal-like Adjectives (of Touch and Sight)
Verb-like Adjectives
Adjectives Present-tense Past-tense
Adjectives Present-tense Past-tenseookii ‘big’
ooki-i (1;8) ookik-atta (2;0) itai ‘painful’ ita-i (1;11) itak-atta (1;11)
omok-atta
tiisai ‘small’ tiisa-i (1;11) tiisaik-atta (2;1) oisii‘delicious’ oisi-i (1;10)(1;10)
kowak-atta
kuroi ‘black’ kuro-i (2;0) kurok-atta (2;4) kowai ‘scary’ kowa-i (1;10)(2;2)
The contrast between nominal-like adjectives and verb-like adjectives is clearer in thecase of Sumihare, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: The Age of the First Appearance of the Present-/Past-tense Forms of Adjectives by
Table 2: Sumihare (CHILDES)
Nominal-like Adjectives (of Touch and Sight)
Verb-like Adjectives
Adjectives Present-tense
Past-tense
Adjectives Present-tense Past-tense
itak-atta
ookik-atta
itai ‘painful’
ita-i (1;8)
ookii ‘big’
ooki-i (1;11)
(2;0)
(2;9)
omok-atta
akak-atta
omoi ‘heavy’ omo-i (1;8)
akai ‘red’
aka-i (1;11)
(2;2)
(4;0)
kusak-atta
sirok-atta
kusai ‘smelly’ kusa-i (2;2)
siroi ‘white’ siro-i (2;2)
(2;3)
(3;6)
Sumihare produced only the present forms for nominal-like adjectives, but never the inflected
forms, when he inserted no between the adjectives of touch and sight (e.g., color, size, shape,and state) and the head nominals. On the other hand, the verb-like adjectives (e.g., itai
(painful), omoi (heavy), kusai (smelly)), which are not erroneously genitive Case marked,
inflected with tense much earlier.
There are several pieces of evidence to show that the adjectives referring to the sense of
touch and sight are used as nominals. For example, as shown in (20), these adjectives are used
as referential noun phrases.

-173- 173 -

2008

(20)

a. *Kiiroi
yellow

2012



to * akai toand red and





(Sumihare 2;9)‘(They’re) a yellow (crayon) and a red (crayon).’(Adult form: kiiroi/akai-no (yellow/red one), kiiro/aka (yellow/red))b. * Tiisai
small

koo-teya
buy-Request Int(Sumihare 2;7)

‘Please buy a small (dog).’(Adult form: tiisai-no (small one))
In (20a), Sumihare erroneously used the adjectives kiiroi (yellow) and akai (red) to refer tothe concrete objects, a yellow crayon and a red crayon. Similarly in (20b), he used theadjective tiisai (small) to refer to a small dog.
These nominal-like adjectives appear in the argument position being Case marked aswell.
(21) *Tittyai-ga atte * maarui-ga atte...
small-Nom beround-Nom be

konna
such

* ookii-ga atte...
big-Nom be(Yuta 2;2)

‘There is (a) small (circle), (a) round (one), and such (a) big (one)…’(Adult form: Tittyai/maarui/ookii no (small/round/big one))
Yuta uttered as in (21), while he was repeatedly drawing circles. The adjectives, tiisai (small),marui (round) and ookii (big), appear in the subject position associated with the nominative
Case marker ga.
The most valid generalization to be drawn from the description so far is that theadjectives referring to the sense of touch and sight are miscategorized as nominals (Murasugi2009). Hence, those children who already know the system of genitive Case marking between
two NPs, “correctly” assign the genitive no to the “nominals” which are, in fact, adjectives inadult grammar.
Then, why do children miscategorize certain adjectives? We conjecture that adjectives
referring to color, size and shape share the properties of concrete nominals in that they are
consistent, absolute, and evidential, compared with other types of adjectives such as emotionand evaluation (cf. Berman 1988, Mintz and Gleitman 2002). And as argued by de Villiersand de Villiers (1978), a certain set of adjectives of size and shape go together as colors inchild language.
Furthermore, acquiring adjectives is difficult because it is “a fluid category” (Gassar andSmith 1998, Berman 1988, Polinsky 2005, among others). As shown in (22), the position
where the adjective big appears in adult English can be occupied with the verb dropped or thenoun a dog. Thus, the syntactic cue is ambiguous for children.

-174- 174 -Three Types of the “Overgenerated No” (K. Murasugi, T. Nakatani and C. Fuji)(22)

a. It’s [big]b. It [dropped]
c. It’s [a dog]

The syntactic cue is ambiguous in Japanese, too. Both adjectives and nominals can befollowed by the polite sentence-ending marker desu, as in (23), while both adjectives andverbs inflect with tense, as in (24).
(23)

a. akaidesu (Adjective)
is-red (Adj) Polite‘(It) is red.’b. akadesu (Nominal)
a red color (Nominal) Polite‘(It) is a red color.’(24)

a. ooki-i
big-Presookik-atta
big-Past(Adjectives)b. aka-i
red-Presakak-atta
red-Past

c. tabe-ru
eat-Prestabe-ta (Verbs)
eat-Past

d. nom-(r)u
drink-Pres

non-da (Verbs)
drink-Past(Adjectives)

In this sense, the Japanese adjective is also “a fluid category,” and this could makeadjectives difficult to be acquired.
Then, when and how do children “intake” the full system of adjectives in the target
language? Kanda (2012), based on the corpus analysis of Taro in CHILDES, reports that there
is an interesting stage where a Japanese-speaking child “optionally” inserts genitive no inside
the NPs.
(25)

a. kuro kyuukyuusya
black ambulance(2;10)‘the ambulance that is black’-175- 175 -

2008

2012



b. Kuroi ozubon?
black pants





(3;1)

‘The black pants?’c.

Kuroi * noblack NOozubon?
pants

(3;1)

‘The black pants?’
A nominal form kuro, an adjective form kuroi without being associated with genitive no, andan adjective form kuroi “erroneously” associated with genitive no, are all found at around thesame age, as shown in (25a), (25b), and (25c), respectively. The noun phrase in (25a) is only
possible as a compound noun, and the noun phrase in (25c) is ill-formed. The examples in(25b) and (25c) are in fact found in a dialogue between Taro and his mother.
(26)

MOTHER: Kuroi ozubon doko?
black pants where‘Where are the black pants?’
TARO:

Kuroi * noblack NOozubon? (= 25c)
pants

‘The black pants?’
MOTHER: Un.
yes‘Yes.’
TARO:

Kuroi ozubon? (= 25b)
black pants‘The black pants?’

The example given above is intriguing in three ways. First, the child does not merely imitate
the caretaker’s utterance. Second, the child corrects himself without any direct negative
evidence. Third, the child is in the transition period, not only with respect to thecategorization of the color adjective, but also with respect to the tense conjugation. Kanda(2012) argues that Taro, at around the time when the overgenerated no is disappearing,produces the past-tensed form of the adjective in question in a “quasi-adult” way.
(27)

kuro [pause] * kuroi-katta
black
black-Past(3;2)‘(It was) black.’-176- 176 -Three Types of the “Overgenerated No” (K. Murasugi, T. Nakatani and C. Fuji)

Taro produced the utterance given in (27) when he found a black spot on his brother’s leg.
Here, the past-tense marker ‘-katta’ is attached to ‘kuroi’, not exactly in the adult way. In fact,
in adult Japanese, the form should be kurok-atta, or kuro-datta, rather than kuroi-katta. Thus,
just at the time when the color adjective ‘kuroi (black)’ was “fluid” with respect to the form
and the marking of genitive Case marker, so was the tense conjugation.
Interestingly, Kanda (2012) points out that Taro’s adjectives such as ‘yoi (good)’, which
expresses positive degree of quality of thing or person for itself, conjugate just like the verb
‘wakaru (understand)’. Taro starts attaching the past-tense affix ‘-atta’ on the stem of some
types of adjectives at around 2;11 as in (28a), just like the verb given in (28b).
(28)

a. yok-atta (2;11)
good-Past‘(It) was good.’b. wak-atta (2;11)
understood‘(I) understood (that).’

The fact that the conjugation system of verb-like adjectives is acquired earlier than that ofnoun-like adjectives is, in fact, parallel with the data of Yuta and Sumihare. The paradigm
observed in the transitional period from “child adjectives” from “adult adjectives” such as
those shown above would provide clues to the analysis of the category of adjectives.
Note here that even if we assume that children’s miscategorization of certain adjectives
causes the genitive Case marker insertion, the Complementizer Hypothesis should be still
maintained. For example, remember the overgeneration phenomena in Toyama dialect inJapanese and Korean. As in (8a) and (8b), repeated below, the overgenerated item is acomplementizer, but not the genitive Case marker.
(8)

* ga
a. Anpanman tui-toru(a character) attaching-is GA

koppu
cup

(Ken 2;11)‘the cup which is pictured with “Anpanman”’
b. Acessi
uncleya
otopaitha-nun * kes soli
motorcycle riding-is KES sound is  (Murasugi 1991)(2-3 years old)

‘Lit. (This) is the sound that a man is riding a motorcycle.’(Kim 1987)

Thus, the Complementizer Hypothesis we discussed in Section 2, should be maintained, andthere are three distinct stages of the “overgeneration” of no.
The hypothesis that there are three stages in the “overgeneration” of no is further
supported by our corpus analysis of Jun. First, Jun, at 2;2, produced a pronoun but not the-177- 177 -

2008

2012









genitive Case marker. He produced (29a) and (29b), where there was a brief pause between
no and the head nominals, basu (bus) and okaasan (mother). This is exactly the Pronoun stage
as is discussed in Section 3.
(29)

a. Ookii no[pause]bigN (one)basyu (= basu) wa?
bus
Top

(2;4)

‘(Where) is the big bus?’
b. ookii no[pause]bigN (one)okaasanmother(2;5)‘the big one, mother’Then, at around 2;5, when the genitive Case markers were productively used as in (30),
he inserted no between adjectives referring to color, size and shape and the head nominals,
without making any pauses, as in (31).
(30)

Kokko-nochicken-Gen

outiyahouse Int

(2;5)‘(This is) a chicken’s house.’(31)

a. Hore, ookii * no
hey
big
NO

torakku
truck

atta zo hore
was Int hey(2;6)‘Hey, there is a big truck.’b. tiisai * nosmall NO

akatyan
baby

(2;6)

‘a small baby’c. kuroi * noblack NOzidoosya
car

(2;6)

‘a black car’Just like Yuta and Sumihare, the overgeneration occurs only with the adjectives of touchand sight, and those adjectives are sometimes used as nominals as well.
(32)

a. *Ookii-ga
big-Nom

otiru
fall

(2;7)

‘The big (toy car) is falling.’(Adult form: ookii-kuruma-ga / ookii-no-ga)-178- 178 -Three Types of the “Overgenerated No” (K. Murasugi, T. Nakatani and C. Fuji)

b. FAT: Kore-wa nan desu ka
this-Top what Cop Q‘What is this?’(Showing CHI a new toy)
CHI: Atarasii * no * akainew
NO red(2;8)‘(It’s) new red.’(Adult form: atarasii akai-no)
In (32a), the adjective ookii (big) appears in the subject position associated with thenominative Case marker ga. In (32b), he used the adjective akai (red) to refer to the concrete
object, a red toy. Hence, those adjectives are treated as nominals, and the overgenerated no in(31) is the genitive Case marker, being “correctly” inserted between two NPs.
Finally, as in (33), he started overgenerating no with relative clauses at around 2;8.
(33)

a. koware-ten
is-broken

* no
NO

yatu
thing

zidoosya
car

(2;8)

‘(This is) a broken car.’b. Omosiroi *no
funny
NO

yakiimobaked sweet potato

ya koreInt this(2;10)‘This is a funny baked sweet potato.’
In (33a), no is overgenerated between the modifier koware-ten (= teru) (is broken) andthe head nominal yatu (thing). (33b) shows that the overgeneration occurs with any kind of
adjectives at this stage. Thus, this is the Complementizer stage, where Jun hypothesizes thatJapanese relative clauses are CPs (Murasugi 1991).
Overgeneration of no at a later stage of language acquisition can be due to two different
reasons, even when they apparently look very similar. Children’s miscategorization of certain
adjectives causes the genitive Case marker insertion as shown in (32). In addition, theComplementizer Hypothesis should be still maintained to explain the overgeneration of nogiven in (33). The categorization of adjectives and the parameter-setting of the structure ofcomplex NPs are the separate issues.
If this analysis is on the right track, then we predict that the children’s erroneous no’s insuch examples as (32) and (33) do not necessarily “disappear” simultaneously. Murasugi(1991), in fact, observes that Emi, a Japanese-speaking child, kept inserting no between suchcolor adjectives as kuroi (black), or the exact color term we discussed in this paper, and thehead nominal. That is, the child kept producing “kuroi *no kuku (the black shoes),” even after
the child stopped overgenerating no on the relative clauses. Murasugi (1991) stipulates in her
dissertation that the name of the black shoes, which were worn only at a very special-179- 179 -

2008

2012







occasion, remained in the child lexicon as the name associated with overgenerated no. But the
stipulation might have been wrong. The problem left unsolved by Murasugi (1991) and themysterious overgeneration phenomenon may be naturally explained by the proposal that thecategorization of adjectives and the parameter-setting of the structure of complex NPs are theseparate issues.
5.

Conclusion

In this paper, mainly based on the longitudinal studies with Yuta, and the corpus analysis
of Sumihare and Jun (CHILDES), we argued that there are three stages of Japanese-speaking
children’s overgeneration of no, in line with Murasugi, Nakatani and Fuji (2009). The
overgeneration of no, which apparently looks like a single phenomenon includes three parts:
No as (i) a pronoun (N) at the late age of one, (ii) the genitive Case marker at around the ageof two, and (iii) a complementizer (C) at around the age of two through four. The only casethat we can truly name as overgeneration is the third stage, or the overgeneration of C. In theother two, no is actually used “correctly”.
The sixty-year-debate in the field of Japanese acquisition has never ended because of thebelief that the overgeneration takes place for a single reason. However, in this paper, we
argued that the overgeneration of no is a trihedral phenomenon, and the hypotheses proposed
were basically all correct. The overgeneration of no is due to three independent reasons, i.e.,
the immature merge operation, the miscategorization of adjectives, and the setting of therelative clause parameter. The analysis of children’s errors informs us of the important phasesin the stages of grammar acquisition, and provides a key to understanding the nature oflanguage.

References
Berman, R. (1988) “Word Class Distinctions in Developing Grammar.” In Y. Levy, I. Schlesinger,
and M. D. S. Braine, eds., Categories and Processes in Language Acquisition, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, 45–72.
Boersma, P. and D. Weenink (2009) Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer (Version 5.1.23) [Computer
Program], Retrieved October 31, 2009, from http://www. praat.org/
Clancy, P. (1985) “The Acquisition of Japanese.” In D. I. Slobin, ed., The Cross Linguistic Study ofLanguage Acquisition Volume 1: The Data, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., 373–524.
de Villiers, J. G. and P. A. de Villiers (1978) Language Acquisition, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Gasser, M. and L. Smith (1998) “Learning Noun and Adjective Meanings: A Connectionist Account,”
Language and Cognitive Processes Special Issue: Language Acquisition and Connectionism
13, 269–306.
Harada, K. (1980) “Notes on the Acquisition of the Genitive Case Particle No,” ms. University of New
Mexico, Albuquerque.
Harada, K. (1984) “On the Acquisition of Japanese,” Kinjo Gakuin Daigaku RonsyuEibeibungaku
hen 25, 149–171.

-180- 180 -Three Types of the “Overgenerated No” (K. Murasugi, T. Nakatani and C. Fuji)

Ito, T. (1998) “Kazyooseiseisareru ‘No’ no Toogo Kategorii – Yoozi Itirei no Zyuudan Kenkyuu [The
Syntactic Category of the Overgenerated “No” in the Speech of Japanese Young Children:
Developmental Evidence from a Longitudinal Study],” Tokyo Gakugei Daigaku Kiyoo
Daiitibumon Kyooikukagaku [Bulletin of Tokyo Gakugei University. Series I, Science of
Education] 49, 143–149.
Iwabuchi, E. and S. Muraishi (1968) “Kotoba no Syuutoku [Acquisition of Language],” in E.
Iwabuchi, K Hatano, J. Naito, I. Kirikae, T. Tokizane, M. Sawashima, S. Muraishi, and T.
Takizawa, eds., Kotoba no Tanzyoo: Ubugoe kara Go sai made [The Birth of Speech: From
Newborn Babies to 5-year-olds], Nihon Hoosoo Shuppan Kyookai, Tokyo, 109–177.
Kanda, Y. (2012) “The Examination of the Overgeneration of ‘no’ ” BA thesis, Nanzan University.
Kim, Y. (1987) The Acquisition of Relative Clauses in English and Korean: Development in
Spontaneous Production, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
Mintz, T. H. and L. R. Gleitman (2002) “Adjectives Really Do Modify Nouns: The Incremental andRestricted Nature of Early Adjective Acquisition,” Cognition 84, 267–293.
Murasugi, K. (1991) Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability and
Acquisition, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Murasugi, K. (2009) “The Onset of Complex NPs in Child Production.” In H. Maezawa and A.
Yokogoshi, eds., Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL6),
MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 61, 47–78.
Murasugi, K. and T. Hashimoto (2004) “Two Different Types of Overgeneration of ‘no’ in Japanese
Noun Phrases,” in H.-J. Yoon, ed., Proceedings of the 4th Asian GLOW in Seoul, Hankook,
Seoul, 327–349.
Murasugi, K. and T. Hashimoto (2006) “Gengo Kakutoku ni okeru Meisikunai deno Kazyooseisei[The Overgeneration of ‘no’ in the Acquisition of Japanese Noun Phrases],” KSL 26, Kansai
Linguistic Society, 12–21.
Murasugi, K., T. Nakatani and C. Fuji (2009) “A Trihedral Approach to the Overgeneration of No in
the Acquisition of Japanese Noun Phrase,” paper presented at the 19th Japanese/Korean
Linguistics Conference, University of Hawaii, November 12–14.
Nagano, S. (1960) “Yooji no Gengo Hattatsu - Tokuni Joshi ‘no’ no Shuutokukatei nituite [Language
Development: A Case Study of Japanese ‘no’],” Kansai Daigaku Kokubun Gakkai: Shimada
Kyooju Koki Kinen Kokubungaku Ronsyu, 405–418.
Noji, J. (1973-1977) Yooziki no Gengoseikatu no Zittai [The Language Use by Children], I-IV, Bunka
Hyoron Syuppan, Tokyo.
Polinsky, M. (2005) “Word Class Distinctions in an Incomplete Grammar.” In D. Ravid and H.
Bat-Zeev Shildrkrodt, eds., Perspectives on Language and Language Development, Kluwer,
Dordrecht, 419–436.
Yokoyama, M. (1990) “Yoozi no Rentai Syuusyoku Hatuwa ni okeru Zyosi ‘no’ no Goyoo [Errors ofParticle ‘no’ in Young Japanese Children’s Adjective-Noun Constructions],” Hattatu
Sinrigaku Kenkyuu 1, 2–9.

-181- 181 -NUMERAL CLASSIFIERS, PLURAL/COLLECTIVE ELEMENTS,
AND NOMINAL ELLIPSIS *Masao Ochi
Osaka University

1.

Introduction

There are many important theoretical issues surrounding the syntax of noun phrases inclassifier languages such as Chinese and Japanese. For example, because the numeralclassifier (NC) occurs in several syntactic environments in Japanese (e.g., prenominally,
postnominally, and floating), a question arises with regard to their relations, that is, whether
or not they should be analyzed as arising from the same underlying source (see Watanabe2006). More broadly speaking, the question about the presence (or absence) of ‘extended’
projections in Japanese, both in the clausal and nominal domains, has been a topic of intense
debate for several decades (see Fukui 1986, Fukui and Sakai 2003, Chierchia 1998a,b, and aseries of recent papers by Bokovi among many others). Against this background, I will
investigate the syntax of noun phrases in Japanese, by primarily focusing on the ways inwhich the NC interacts with the plural/collective element and the universal quantifier. I will
discuss three issues in this connection. First, following Li (1999), I will motivate a syntactic
dependency involving the plural/collective element and an abstract functional head in Chineseand Japanese. Second, I will discuss how the NC interacts with a universal quantifier insideand outside the nominal domain (see also Kawashima 1998). Finally, I will discuss somenominal ellipsis paradigms in light of the syntax of classifiers explored in this paper. It should
be noted at the outset of this paper that each of the issues to be discussed below deserves
much more careful scrutiny. What is reported here is preliminary in a number of respects.
The NC in Japanese is known to appear in several environments, including a prenominal
position and a postnominal one, as illustrated in (1). When it appears prenominally, it isaccompanied by the particle -no, unlike when the NC appears postnominally.
(1)

a. taroo-wa
Taro-TOPgo-ko-no5-CL-GENgyooza-o
dumpling-ACC

tabe-ta.
eat-PAST(prenominal NC)‘Taro ate five dumplings.’* This paper is based in part on a workshop presentation at the 143rd Meeting of the LinguisticSociety of Japan held at Osaka University on November 27, 2011. I would like to thank the workshop
participants for comments and questions.

-183-20122008

b. taroo-wa
Taro-TOP

gyoozago-ko-odumpling 5-CL-ACC



tabe-ta.
eat-PAST(postnominal NC)

Following Huang and Ochi (2011), I will explore a non-uniform approach to the two NC
constructions.1 In particular, I assume, following Saito et al. (2008) and Miyamoto (2009),
that the prenominal NC is an NP-level modifier (or an adjunct), as shown in (2). I also assume
that the postnominal NC has the structure shown in (3) (which is based on Watanabe (2006)).
NP(2)

CLP-no

NP

#-CL
XP

(3)
NP

X
CLP
#

X

CL
tNP

CL

Although the main focus of this paper is on Japanese, I will also make crucial reference to thenominal structure of Chinese. Following Tang (1990) and Cheng and Sybesma (1999), I willassume, without any further discussion, that the NC construction in Chinese instantiates a
structure like the one in (5), where the classifier is a head selecting NP as its complement.
(4)san-ben(*-de) shu
3-CL
book

(Chinese)‘three books’
(5)

CLP
#

CL
CL

NP

1

See Sauerland and Yatsushiro (2004) and Miyamoto (2009) for a non-uniform treatment of the NC
constructions in Japanese. See also Shlonsky (2004) for a non-uniform treatment of prenominal andpostnominal numerals in Hebrew.

-184- 184 -Numeral Classifiers, Plural/Collective Elements, and Nominal Ellipsis (M. Ochi)

One point worth mentioning here is that, under this line of approach, the NC construction in
Chinese (5) and the postnominal NC construction in Japanese (3) essentially share the samestructure, except that the latter involves overt movement of NP. This point will be taken up in
section 2. Before turning to the three issues mentioned earlier, let me briefly introduce twoarguments from Huang and Ochi (2011) in support of this line of hypothesis (for a fuller
discussion, I advise the reader to consult Huang and Ochi (2011)) .
1.1.

Scope

One of the implications of the approach sketched above is the following. Comparing (2)and (3), we can see that the position of the postnominal classifier is structurally higher thanthat of the prenominal classifier: the former selects NP as its complement whereas the latter isan adjunct to NP. Generalizing this point, we might argue that a postnominal element, be it aclassifier or something else, is structurally higher than any prenominal element. The contrast
in (6) confirms this point. As discussed by Watanabe (2006) and others, universal quantifiers
like subete also occur both prenominally and postnominally. Crucially, (6a) is ungrammatical.
This contrast follows from the structures in (2) and (3), assuming that the universal quantifier
cannot be in the scope of numerals, as illustrated by the English data in (7). I therefore assume
that a postnominal element is structurally higher than a prenominal one.
(6)

a. *taroo-wa subete-no
Taro-TOP -GENgyoozago-ko-odumpling 5-CL-ACC

tabe-ta.
eat-PAST(*-no N NC)‘Taro ate all (of the) five dumplings.’
subete-ob. taroo-wa go-ko-no gyooza
Taro-TOP 5-CL-GEN dumpling -ACC(7)

all three books vs. *three all books

1.2.

Specificity

tabe-ta.
eat-PAST(NC-no N  )The structures in (2) and (3) also indicate that the postnominal NC construction involves
more structure than the prenominal NC, since the former always involves projections on topof NP. This point receives potential support from a particular line of approach to specificity,taken up by Hudson (1989), Ritter (1995) and Muromatsu (1998). The gist of this approach issummarized in (8), which Huang and Ochi (2011) argue is confirmed by the Chinese patternshown in (9). The point about (9) is that in order for Chinese to express a specific indefinite
reading, it needs more material than it does for expressing a non-specific indefinite reading.
(8)

Specific indefinites have a larger structure than non-specific indefinites (see Hudson
1989, Ritter 1995, and especially Muromatsu 1998).

-185- 185 -

2008

(9)

2012









Chinese indefinites (setting aside the definite vs. indefinite issue; see Cheng andSybesma (1999))
Bare N (e.g., shu ‘book’)
CL + N (e.g., ben shu ‘CL book’)
Num + CL + N (e.g., san-ben shu ‘3-CL book’)

non-specific

specific**Now let us compare this table with the one in (10), which is for Japanese. As discussed by
Huang and Ochi (2011), whose discussion is based on Downing (1994), there is aninterpretive difference between the prenominal NC and the postnominal NC in Japanese.
Specifically, the postnominal NC strongly prefers a specific indefinite reading.
(10)Japanese (see Downing 1994, Huang and Ochi 2011)
Prenominal NC + N (e.g., san-satsu-no hon …)
N + Postnominal NC (e.g., hon san-satsu-o …)
Floating NC (e.g., hon-o kinoo san-satsu …)

non-specific??


specific*

We can demonstrate this point by placing prenominal and postnominal NCs in a context thatforces a non-specific reading. As shown below, the postnominal NC sounds fairly degraded insuch contexts (see Huang and Ochi 2011 for a detailed discussion of such paradigms).
(11)

Non-specific context ( prenominal; *postnominal NC;  floating NC)
heikin-suru to, kono byooin-de-wa
maishuu…
average-do,
this hospital-at-TOP every week
‘On average, every week in this hospital, …’
a. san-nin-no
3-CL-noakanboo-ga
baby-NOM

umare-teiru.
be born‘... three babies are born.’b. * akanboo
baby

san-nin-ga
3-CL-NOM

umare-teiru.
be borncf. akanboo-ga
baby-NOM

san-nin3-CLumare-teiru.
be born

Note that among the various nominals listed in (9) and (10), the postnominal NC in Japaneseis exceptional in that it resists a non-specific reading. This curious property of thepostnominal NC in Japanese follows under a particular approach to specificity summarized in(8), assuming that the postnominal NC in Japanese is always sufficiently ‘large’, as discussed-186- 186 -Numeral Classifiers, Plural/Collective Elements, and Nominal Ellipsis (M. Ochi)

above.2 The postnominal NC structure shown in (3) is even larger than the Chinese NC
structure in (5); the former involves an additional projection on top of the classifier
projection, which is needed to host the moved NP. Now let us turn to the three issues
mentioned earlier.
2.

Classifiers and Collective/Plural Elements

As mentioned earlier, our approach to numeral classifiers treats the postnominal NC in
Japanese and the NC structure in Chinese alike: both involve the classifier head that takes NP
as its complement. But there is an interesting difference between the two. Let us examinesome data containing plural/collective suffixes in the two languages: -men in Chinese and-tachi (-ra etc.) in Japanese. As pointed out in the previous literature (see in particular
Kurafuji 2004), these suffixes share a number of inherent semantic properties. For example,
they yield two different readings, depending on the type of the noun to which they areattached. When attached to common nouns, they typically yield the plural reading, as
illustrated in (12). In this respect, -men and -tachi are similar to -s in English.
(12)

a. xuesheng-men
student-MEN‘the students’b. gakusei-tachi
student-TACHI‘(the) students’

When attached to proper nouns, these suffixes yield the so-called ‘collective’ reading (“…
and others”).
(13)

a. Xiao Qiang-men
Xiao Qiang-MEN‘Xiao Qiang and others’
b. taroo-tachi
Taro-TACHI‘Taro and others’

There are additional similarities between -men and -tachi. As noted by Li (1999), attachment
2

Alternatively, NP-movement to the nominal edge as depicted in (3) may be directly responsible forthis apparent specificity effect, the idea being that the landing site of NP-movement counts as acriterial position, a position dedicated to express some scope/discourse property, in the left edge of anominal domain, akin to criterial positions in the left edge of a clause (thanks to Luigi Rizzi (p.c.) for
the suggestion).

-187- 187 -

2008

2012







of -men forces the resulting nominal expression to be definite, as shown in (14b).
(14)

a. Wo qu zhao haizi.
I
go find child‘I will go find some/the child(ren).’b. Wo qu zhao haizi-men.
Igo find child-MEN‘I will go find the children.’

According to Kurafuji (2004), the same property is observed with -tachi in Japanese.3 For
example, while (15a) is fully felicitous in a situation in which finding any child(ren) will
fulfill the speaker’s desire, (15b) sounds strange in a situation in which the speaker has no
particular group of children in mind.
(15)

a. boku-wa
I-TOP

kodomo-ochild-ACC

sagashiteiru.
look for‘I’m looking for some/the child(ren).’b. boku-wa
I-TOP

kodomo-tachi-ochild-TACHI-ACC

sagashiteiru.
look for‘I’m looking for the children.’
There is one striking difference between -men and -tachi, however. According to Iljic (1994)
and Li (1999), -men and the classifier cannot co-occur when the former is attached to thecommon noun. No such restriction applies in the corresponding case in Japanese.4(16)

a. Wo qing [san-ge xuesheng(*-men)] chifan.
-MEN eatIinvite [3-CL student‘I invited (the) three children for a meal.’3

But see Nakanishi and Tomioka (2004) for a different view. While they offer several arguments tothe effect that -tachi is not inherently definite, what is crucial for me here is that these suffixes sharesome property P (be it definiteness or something else) and that P is tied to the syntactic dependency
between N-men/-tachi and a higher functional head. It is therefore necessary to examine whether or
not the points and observations made by Nakanishi and Tomioka for -tachi also hold for -men, a taskthat I have to leave for another occasion.
4

Previous analyses of this phenomenon include Borer’s (2005) morpho-syntactic account and Bale &Khanjian’s (2008) semantic account. The former works well for Chinese but fails to extend to
Japanese. The latter discusses some interesting fact about Armenian vs. English; but it fails to capture
the fact about Japanese.

-188- 188 -Numeral Classifiers, Plural/Collective Elements, and Nominal Ellipsis (M. Ochi)b. boku-wa
I-TOP
maneita.
invited[san-nin-no gakusei-tachi / gakusei-tachi san-nin]-o[3-CL-GEN student-TACHI / student-TACHI 3-CL -ACC

‘I invited (the) three students for a meal.’
As pointed out by Li (1999), there is no inherent incompatibility between -men and theclassifier. They can co-occur when -men is attached to the proper noun/pronoun occurring in
the left edge of the nominal phrase, as shown in (17a). We find a parallel example inJapanese, shown in (17b).
(17)/ Xiao Qiang-men san-ge (ren)]a. Wo qing [ta-men
Iinvite [(s)he-MEN / Xiao Qiang-MEN 3-CL (person

chifan.
eat‘I invited [them three children/the three people including Xiao Qiang] for a meal’
b. boku-wa [kanojo-tachi / hanako-tachi
san-nin-no
I-TOP[she-TACHI / Hanako-TACHI 3-CL-GEN

maneita.
josei]-olady -ACC invited‘I invited [them three ladies/the three ladies including Hanako’
What would account for the contrast in (16)? Adopting Li’s overall proposal, let us assume
(18).
(18)

Properties of -men and -tachi (see Li 1999)
a. They are suffixes attached to the nominal head.
b. They bear some feature relevant for definiteness (but see also footnote 3), whichneeds to be checked against a higher functional head.

For Li (1999), the relevant functional head of (18b) is D, but I will not commit myself as tothe exact label of this functional head, simply referring to it as Y.5 I will also assume,
following Li (1999), that the head movement of N to a higher functional head is blocked by
the presence of the CL head, as shown in (19).

5This Y head may or may not be identical to X in (3). As briefly discussed in section 1.2, thepostnominal NC construction always has an extra projection on top of CLP (labeled as XP) and it istypically interpreted as a specific nominal. YP, the locus of definiteness, may be projecting on top ofXP, a possibility which is compatible with the analysis in the main text.

-189- 189 -2012

2008

YP

(19)
Y









(HMC violation; see Li 1999)

CLP
#

CL
CL

NP
N-men



X

Although I essentially adopt Li’s (1999) overall analysis, there is one point of departure. I
assume that this head movement in Chinese is covert. As shown in (20), adnominal adjectives
always precede the head noun in Chinese, which would be unexpected if the N head moved
up in overt syntax.
(20)

a. Wo zhaodao-leIfound-ASP

kaile-de haizi-men
le.
happy-DE child-MEN‘I found the happy children.’b. * Wo zhaodao-leI
foundhaizi-menkaile(-de) le.
child-MEN happy

I will assume that this covert head movement of N is also available in Japanese. (21)illustrates this point for the prenominal NC structure with -tachi. Given our earlier assumptionthat the prenominal NC is an adjunct to NP, it is no surprise that it does not block the head
movement of N (see also Ueda and Haraguchi 2008 on this point).
YP

(21)
NP

(prenominal NC in Japanese)Y[def]

CLP-no N-tachi#-CL
The real interesting issue here is why the postnominal NC and -tachi can co-occur. Recall ourassumption that the postnominal CL structure in Japanese is parallel to the Chinese CL
structure. In both cases, the CL head takes NP as its complement.
I believe that the structure shown in (3) would give us an answer. As shown in (22), NP,
to whose head -tachi is attached, moves out of CLP and lands in the spec of YP, upon which-tachi and the functional head Y are in a local relation. In essence, -tachi moves as a free

-190- 190 -Numeral Classifiers, Plural/Collective Elements, and Nominal Ellipsis (M. Ochi)

rider, carried along with the rest of NP, which moves for an independent reason (see Huang
and Ochi 2011).
(22)

YP
NP

Y

N-tachi

CLP
#

Y
[def]

CL
tNP

CL

The fact about (17), i.e., that -men and -tachi can be attached to proper nouns/pronouns that
occur in the left edge of the nominal which includes the classifier, follows from Li’s (1999)
proposal that such phrases can be base-generated fairly high (e.g., in the spec of YP) in thenominal domain. As shown in (23), -tachi and Y can enter into a checking relation “as is.”(23)

YP
kanojo-tachi(for (17b))
Y

NP

Y
[def]

san-nin-no N
3.

Floating/Stranded  + Numeral

The second issue that I would like to take up here concerns the relation between
adnominal classifiers and floating classifiers. The connection between them has been
intensely debated in the literature. One prominent view, going back to Miyagawa (1989),
holds that the floating NC and the noun it modifies are “together” in the underlying structure.
Let us refer to this view as the ‘stranding’ view. There are scholars who question this view,especially those who take the floating NC to be adverbial in nature. See, for example,
Nakanishi (2007) for a recent work along this line. In this section, I present some data
pointing to the view that at least some instances of floating classifiers must involve stranding.
As a starting point of discussion, let us introduce Jenks’ (2011) cross-linguistic
generalization concerning floating/stranded NC.

-191- 191 -2012

2008

(24)







Only those classifier languages that have (or allow) the Noun-NC order allow NC-float(head-final languages: Burmese, Japanese, and Korean; head-initial languages: Thai,
Khmer).

To the extent that the stranding view is correct, (24) has an implication that it is the
postnominal NC, not the prenominal NC, that should be related to the stranded NC. The idea
is that NP-movement takes place in both cases, but they differ with respect to the final
position of NP. If NP ends up in the left edge of the nominal domain, we get the postnominal
NC construction, as shown in (25a). If NP moves out of the nominal domain, into the VP
domain or further up, we get the floating/stranded NC construction, as shown in (25b).
(25)

XP

a.

b.
NP

NP

X
CLP
#

V
X

CLP

CL
tNP

#
CL

V

CL
tNP

CL

With this idea in mind, let us consider the examples in (26), which, like our earlier examples
in (6), contain the NC and the universal quantifier subete. But, this time, the NC and subete
both occur postnominally, and only the order in (26b) is allowed. Given our earlier discussion
based on (7), we can conclude that, as far as the postnominal domain is concerned, theelement that occurs to the right takes in its scope what occurs to its left. (26a) is
ungrammatical because the universal quantifier is within the scope of the numeral, as
illustrated in (27a). (26b) is fine because the universal quantifier is not in the scope of thenumeral, as shown in (27b).
(26)

a. *taroo-wa gyooza
subete go-ko-otabe-ta.
Taro-TOP dumpling 
5-CL-ACC eat-PAST(*N  NC)

‘Taro ate all (of the) five dumplings.’
b. taroo-wa gyooza
go-ko
Taro-TOP dumpling 5-CL

subete-o
-ACC-192- 192 -tabe-ta.
eat-PAST(N NC  )

Numeral Classifiers, Plural/Collective Elements, and Nominal Ellipsis (M. Ochi)

(27)

a.

*XP

P

b.
X

NP
CLP
#

X

NP

CL
P

X

CLP
CL

tNP



XP

#


X

CL
tNP

CL

Let us now turn to some related cases where classifiers and/or subete are stranded.6 In (28a)and (28b), the adverbial phrase sono toki ‘that time’ is inserted in such a way to separate
go-ko ‘5-CL’ and subete ‘’, respectively, from the rest of the object noun phrase. The
contrast in acceptability between the two examples mirrors the word order restriction that we
witnessed in (26). The same remark applies to (29), where the noun (phrase) gyooza‘dumpling’ is separated from go-ko ‘5-CL’ and subete ‘’ by the adverbial phrase.
(28)

a. *taroo-ga
Taro-NOM(*N  NC)gyoozasubete-odumpling -ACC

sono toki go-ko
that time 5-CL

tabe-ta(koto)
eat-PAST (fact‘(the fact that) Taro ate all of the five dumplings at that time’b. taroo-ga
Taro-NOM(N NC  )gyoozago-ko-odumpling 5-CL-ACC

sono toki subete tabe-ta(koto)
that time 
eat-PAST (fact‘(the fact that) Taro ate all of the five dumplings at that time’(29)

a. *taroo-ga
Taro-NOM(*N  NC)gyooza-o
dumpling-ACC

sono toki subete go-ko
that time 
5-CLtabe-ta(koto)
eat-PAST (fact‘(the fact that) Taro ate all of the five dumplings at that time.’b. taroo-ga
Taro-NOM(N NC )gyooza-o
dumpling-ACC

sono toki go-ko
that time 5-CL

subete tabe-ta(koto)

eat-PAST (fact‘(the fact that) Taro ate all of the five dumplings at that time.’
This is quite suggestive that examples such as (28b) and (29b) involve stranding. I will thus
explore the possibility that such examples are derived from a structure like the one in (27b)6

See Kawashima (1998) for related data and discussion.

-193- 193 -

2008

2012







(except that its subpart moves out of the nominal domain). To be more specific, if it is just the
NP that moves out of the nominal domain, we will get the word order in (29b). If XP, a larger
chunk, moves out of the nominal domain, we can derive (28b). Crucially, there is no way toyield (28a) or (29a) from the structure in (27b). For example, gyooza ‘dumpling’ and subete‘’ do not form a constituent to the exclusion of go-ko ‘5-CL’. Also, subete ‘’ and go-ko‘5-CL’ cannot form a unit in this order. In what follows, I would like to focus on data like(29b), where NP is separated from NC + subete.
It is worth introducing Cirillo’s (2010) discussion of examples corresponding to (29b) in
Dutch, Romanian, and Italian. In the Dutch example given in (30b), all drie ‘all three’modifies the subject de studenten ‘the students’. Following Cirillo, I will refer to this type of
construction as the “universal numeric quantifier” (UNQ) construction. All the Dutch
examples below are taken from his work.7(30)

a. Alle drie de studenten
all three the students

hebben het boek gelezen.
havethe book readb. De studenten hebben alle drie het boek gelezen.
the students have
all three the book read
Cirillo (2010) points out that that the stranded UNQ is clearly not adverbial. When theuniversal quantifier in Dutch is stranded on its own, it may (or it often does) take theadverbial form, as shown in (31b). But it cannot appear in the adverbial form in the UNQ
construction, as shown in (32b). Once again, this is a good indication that such examples arederived via stranding.
(31)

a. Al de studenten hebben het boek gelezen.
all the students havethe book readb. De studenten hebben allen / allemaal
the students haveall / all (adv.)(32)

a. Alle drie de studenten
all three the students

het boek gelezen.
the book readhebben het boek gelezen.
havethe book readb. De studenten hebben alle / *allemaal
the students haveall / all (adv.)

drie het boek gelezen.
three the book readTo this we can add evidence from Japanese that the floating UNQ is not a base-generated
complex quantifying expression of the kind shown in (33a) for English, which has often beenpresented in the relevant literature as evidence against the stranding view. In particular, I
7

Although I accept Cirillo’s (2010) conclusion that the UNQ construction is derived via stranding,there may be some questions about the specifics of his analysis, in particular, his claim that thenumeral and the universal are base-generated as a complex head.

-194- 194 -Numeral Classifiers, Plural/Collective Elements, and Nominal Ellipsis (M. Ochi)

show below that examples like (29b) are not derived in the manner shown in (33b), with theellipsis of the pronominal part of a base-generated, appositive-like nominal.
(33)

a. The students have all three of them passed the exam.
b. gyooza-otaroo-ga
dumpling-ACC Taro-NOM

sore-ra go-ko
them
5-CL

subete tabe-ta(koto)

eat-PAST (fact‘(the fact that) Taro ate the dumplings, all five of them’
The crucial data is (34). As shown in (34a), when NP, numeral, and subete are together, it ispossible to insert -no between them, e.g., between the NC and subete. We could analyze such
examples as instances of a partitive construction, with the meaning ‘all of the five dumplings.’
In the context of stranding, however, insertion of -no is impossible, as shown in (34b). Thisshows that (29b) does not contain a base-generated, appositive-like NP.
(34)

a. taroo-ga
Taro-NOM

gyoozago-ko(-no)
subete-odumpling 5-CL -GEN -ACC

tabe-ta(koto).
eat-PAST (fact‘(the fact that) Taro ate all five of the dumplings’
b. taroo-ga
Taro-NOM(koto)(fact

gyooza-osono toki
dumpling-ACC that time

go-ko(*-no)subete tabe-ta
eat-PAST
5-CL -GEN 

This is a good indication that examples like (29b) are derived via stranding. Consider (35) inthis light. Our discussion indicates that stranding (i.e., NP movement out of the nominal
domain) is possible in (35a), but not in (35b). But why does the presence of -no make such a
difference? Several possibilities come to mind. For example, comparing the two structures in(35), we see that NP is more deeply embedded in (35b), due to the presence of an extra
projection, PP. This might have something to do with the contrast between the two.
Alternatively, extraction may be impossible because of Last Resort. Suppose that -no is a
postposition, assigning Case to its CLP complement. Now, CLP needs Case precisely because
it is an extended projection of NP. If NP-movement is motivated for Case reasons (as Huang
and Ochi (2011) speculate), then there should be no motivation for NP to move out of thenominal domain, and by economy reasoning, it cannot move out.

-195- 195 -2012

2008

(35)





P

a.
CLP
#



P

b.




PP

CL
NP



CLP
CL

#

P

CL
NP

no
CL

X
4.

Ellipsis

The general picture laid out so far has implications for nominal-internal ellipsis
paradigms. As discussed by Saito et al. (2008) and Tsai (2011), the NC construction in
Chinese allows nominal-internal ellipsis (by which I mean nominal ellipsis to the exclusion of
the NC part). In the following example, shu ‘book’ in the second clause is missing.
(36)

Suiran Zhangsan[san-ben shu],
Zhangsan mai-lethough Zhangsan buy-PERF [3-CLbookdan Lisi mai-le[wu-ben shu]but Lisi buy-PERF [5-CLbook‘Lit. Zhangsan bought three books, but Lisi bought five.’
As for Japanese, the postnominal NC does allow nominal-internal ellipsis, as shown in (37)(see Takahashi 2008). The Chinese NC construction and the postnominal NC constructions inJapanese thus behave on a par in this respect.
(37)

busshu-wa [jibun-ni kansuru hon] ni-satsu-oBush-TOP [self-DAT related book 2-CL-ACC
obama-wa
e 3-satsu-oyonda.
Obama-TOP
3-CL-ACC readyonda.
read‘Bush read two books about himself. Obama read three e.’( sloppy)

The prenominal NC nominal in Japanese, on the other hand, does not allow ellipsis, as
discussed extensively by Saito et al. (2008).
(38) * taroo-wa [san-satsu-no hon] -oTaro-TOP [3-CL-GEN
book-ACC[go-satsu-no hon]-okatta.
[5-CL-GEN book-ACC bought

katta
ga,
bought thoughhanako-wa
Hanako-TOP‘Taro bought three books, but Hanako bought five.’
One could say that this fact follows from the postulated structure in (2), according to which
the prenominal NC is an NP-adjunct. For concreteness, let us adopt an LF copying approach-196- 196 -Numeral Classifiers, Plural/Collective Elements, and Nominal Ellipsis (M. Ochi)

to nominal ellipsis (see Saito 2007). On the assumption that a syntactic operation can affect amaximal projection or a head, but not a segment of a projection, (38) would not be derivablebecause a syntactic operation cannot copy the object noun in the first conjunct in such a way
to exclude san-satsu-no ‘3-CL-GEN’ from being copied along with the lower segment of theobject noun phrase.
But things are not so simple. Consider the following example from Watanabe (2010).
(39)

taroo-wa san-satsu-no
Taro-TOP 3-CL-GEN
katta.
boughthon-obook-ACC

katta
ga,bought thoughhanako-wa
Hanako-TOP

go-satsu
5-CL‘Taro bought three books, but Hanako bought five.’
The first clause contains the prenominal NC, and the nominal hon ‘book’ is missing from thesecond clause. One potential source of the latter clause is the stranded NC construction, withthe deletion of NP (i.e., argument drop).
(40)

taroo-wa [NP san-satsu-no [NP hon]]-o katta ga, hanako-wa [NP hon]-o go-satsu katta
LF copy

Watanabe rejects this line of analysis on the basis of the familiar parallelism requirement
imposed on ellipsis. But whether or not parallelism is violated in this case needs to becarefully examined. Note that ellipsis is in general sensitive to the presence or absence of an
adjunct element associated with the elliptical site. Consider the following example.
(41)

taroo-wa jiroo-ga
kaita hon-o
katta
ga,
Taro-TOP Jiro-NOM wrote book-ACC bought thoughkawa-nak-atta.
buy-NEG-PAST

hanako-wa
Hanako-TOP‘Lit. Taro bought the book(s) that Jiro wrote, but Hanako didn’t buy.’
The most salient reading of the second clause is that Hanako did not buy the book(s) that Jiro
wrote. Crucially, it does not mean that Hanako did not buy a book/books, which indicates thata relative clause cannot be ignored upon copying the object of the first clause. The following
VP-ellipsis example, taken from Oku (1998), points to the same conclusion.
(42)

John washed a car carefully, but Mary didn’t.

The second clause means that Mary washed a car but not in a careful manner, according to
Oku (1998). Again, it does not mean that Mary did not wash a car. Thus, a VP-level adverb
must be included in the interpretation of the elided VP. Seen in this light, (40) does not seemto be an adequate analysis of (39).

-197- 197 -

2008

2012









According to Watanabe, (39) is instead derived from the prenominal NC source, as
schematically shown below. The idea is that -no of san-satsu-no ‘3-CL-GEN’ is a linker,
inserted by a -no insertion rule of the kind discussed by Kitagawa and Ross (1982). Crucially,
Watanabe argues that this insertion rule is sensitive to the overt realization of the head noun:
it is inoperative when the head noun is elided.
(43)… hanako-wa… Hanako-TOP[go-satsu hon]-o[5-CLbook-ACC

katta
boughtThis is an interesting argument. Nevertheless, there is some indication that examples like (39)are in fact derived from the stranded NC construction, not from the prenominal NC
construction. According to Nakanishi (2007), the stranded NC typically has the forced
distributive reading, which is clear when a predicate like koros- ‘kill’ is employed.
(44)

a. san-nin-no
3-CL-GENotoko-gaman-NOM

taroo-okoroshita.
Taro-ACC killed(prenominal NC)‘Three men killed Taro.’
b. otokoman

san-nin-ga
3-CL-NOM

san-ninc. *otoko-ga
man-NOM 3-CL

taroo-okoroshita.
Taro-ACC killed(postnominal NC)

taroo-oTaro-ACC(stranded NC)

koroshita.
killedNow, let us consider the following example using koros- ‘kill’, which, like (39), contains aprenominal NC in the first clause and lacks an overt nominal associated with the NC in thesecond clause. The unacceptability of this example indicates that such examples necessarily
come from the stranded NC construction. If such an example could come from the prenominal
NC source, it would be unclear why it is unacceptable.
(45)

kyonenlast year* kotoshi
this year

san-nin-no otoko-ga
jiroo-okoroshita.
3-CL-GEN man-NOM Jiro-ACC killed
go-nin taroo-okoroshita.
5-CL
Taro-ACC killed‘Last year three men killed Jiro.This year, five men killed Taro.’
The example is fine without ellipsis.
(46)

kyonenlast year
kotoshithis year

san-nin-no
3-CL-GEN
go-nin-no
5-CL-GENotoko-gajiroo-oman-NOM Jiro-ACC
otoko-gataroo-oman-NOM Taro-ACC

koroshita.
killedkoroshita.
killed‘Last year three men killed Jiro.This year, five men killed Taro.’-198- 198 -Numeral Classifiers, Plural/Collective Elements, and Nominal Ellipsis (M. Ochi)

Thus, I conclude that (39) involves the stranded NC, not the prenominal NC.
But, then, we need to explain the difference between (39) (as analyzed in the mannershown in (40)) on the one hand and (41) and (42) on the other. Recall that the (im)possible
interpretations of the latter examples indicate that an adjunct element modifying the target of
ellipsis cannot be ignored for the purpose of LF copying operations, be it NP-ellipsis or
VP-ellipsis. But this is exactly what we find in (40), as we are assuming with Saito et al.
(2008) and Miyamoto (2009) that the prenominal NC is an adjunct to NP.
In this context, I would like to introduce Oku’s (1998) subset copy principle, whichbasically states that a (proper) subset of the antecedent can be copied and supplied as thecontent of the elided material under LF-copying operations. Among other things, Oku’s
proposal is intended to deal with what Fiengo and May (1994) calls ‘vehicle change’
phenomenon, exemplified by (47) below.
(47)

Mary will admire John, and he thinks Susie will, too.

This example allows co-reference of John and he. But, as noted by Fiengo and May, if theantecedent VP is copied into the second clause “as is”, as shown in (48a) below, it should leadto a Condition C violation. Following Fiengo and May, Oku argues that (47) has (48b) as wellas (48a) as a possible LF representation. Of course, there are no binding condition violationsin (48b).
(48)

a. Mary will [VP admire John], and he thinks Susie will [VP admire John], too.
b. Mary will [VP admire John], and he thinks Susie will [VP admire him], too.

This is made possible by the subset copy principle, and by the idea that a pronoun is merely acollection of -features while an R-expression contains -features and some additionalfeatures (relevant for their intrinsic referential property) (see Burzio 1991): simply put, the setof features for the pronoun he is a subset of the feature set for R-expressions like John.
Now, Oku’s subset copy principle should allow the representation in (40). The LF
copying operation should be able to copy the segment of the object NP, hon ‘book’, ignoring
the upper segment, i.e., san-satsu-no ‘3-CL-GEN’. Of course, the same reasoning should
apply to (41) and (42). But I suspect that the parallelism constraint would interfere withignoring the adjunct in such cases. Note that (38) can still be ruled out under this line ofanalysis. There is no attachment site for the NP-adjunct go-satsu-no ‘5-CL-GEN’ before a
copying operation creates the object nominal in the second clause.
5.

Conclusion

To summarize, adopting Huang and Ochi’s (2011) analysis, I have discussed three issues
in connection with classifiers inside and outside the nominal domain. First, the contrast
between Chinese and Japanese with respect to the (in)compatibility of -men/-tachi and the-199- 199 -

2008

2012









classifier can receive a simple, syntactic account. Second, there is a good indication that thefloating universal numeric quantifier involves stranding. Finally, some asymmetries in thedomain of ellipsis follow rather naturally from the postulated structures for Japanese/Chinese
NC constructions.

References
Bale, A. and H. Khanjian (2008) “Armenian Classifiers and Number Marking,” SALT XVIII.
Borer, H. (2005) In Name Only, Oxford University Press.
Burzio, L. (1991) “The Morphological Basis of Anaphora,” Journal of Linguistics 27, 81–105.
Cheng, L. and R. Sybesma (1999) “Bare and Not-So-Bare Nouns and the Structure of NP,” Linguistic
Inquiry 30, 509–542.
Chierchia, G. (1998a) “Plurality of Mass Nouns and the Notion of Semantic Parameter.” In S.
Rothstein, ed., Events and Grammar, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 53–103.
Chierchia, G. (1998b) “Reference to Kinds across Languages,” Natural Language Semantics 6,
339–405.
Cirillo, R. (2010) “Issues in the Study of Floating Universal Numeric Quantifiers,” Linguistics 48,
573–601.
Downing, P. (1994) Numeral Classifier Systems: The Case of Japanese, John Benjamins.
Fiengo, R. and R. May (1994) Indices and Identity, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Huang, C.-T. J. and M. Ochi (2011) “Classifiers and Nominal Structure: A Parametric Approach and
Its Consequences,” Proceedings of GLOW-in-Asia VIII, 191–197.
Hudson, W. (1989) “Functional Categories and the Saturation of Noun Phrases,” Proceedings of NELS
19, 207–222.
Iljic, R. (1994) “Quantification in Mandarin Chinese: Two Markers of Plurality,” Linguistics 32,
91–116.
Jenks, P. (2011) “Thai Quantier Float as Quantier Raising,” Proceedings of GLOW-in-Asia VIII,
198–204.
Kawashima, R. (1998) “The Structure of Extended Nominal Phrases: The Scrambling of Numerals,
Approximate Numerals, and Quantifiers in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7,
1–26.
Kitagawa, C. and C. Ross (1982) “Prenominal Modification in Chinese and Japanese,” Linguistic
Analysis 9, 19–53.
Kurafuji, T. (2004) “Plural Morphemes, Definiteness, and the Notion of Semantic Parameter,”
Language and Linguistics 5, 211–242.
Li, Y.-H. A. (1999) “Plurality in a Classifier Language,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8, 75–99.
Miyagawa, S. (1989) Structure and Case Marking in Japanese, Academic Press, New York.
Miyamoto, Y. (2009) “On the Nominal-Internal Distributive Interpretation in Japanese,” Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 18, 233–251.
Muromatsu, K. (1998) On the Syntax of Classifiers, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.
Nakanishi, K. (2007) Formal Properties of Measurement Constructions, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Nakanishi, K. and S. Tomioka (2004) “Japanese Plurals are Exceptional,” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 13, 113–140.
Oku, S. (1998) A Theory of Selection and Reconstruction in the Minimalist Perspective, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Saito, M. (2007) “Notes on East Asian Argument Ellipsis,” Language Research 43, 203–227.

-200- 200 -Numeral Classifiers, Plural/Collective Elements, and Nominal Ellipsis (M. Ochi)

Saito, M., T.-H. J. Lin and K. Murasugi (2008) “N -Ellipsis and the Structure of Noun Phrases in
Chinese and Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17, 247–271.
Sauerland, U. and K. Yatsushiro (2004) “A Silent Noun in Partitives,” Proceedings of NELS 34,
101–112.
Shlonsky, U. (2004) “The Form of Semitic Noun Phrases,” Lingua 114: 12, 1465–1526.
Takahashi, D. (2008) “Noun Phrase Ellipsis.” In S. Miyagawa and M. Saito, eds., The Oxford
Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, Oxford University Press, New York, 394–422.
Tang, C.-C. J. (1990) Chinese Phrase Structure and the Extended X-Bar Theory, Ph.D. dissertation,
Cornell University, Ithaca.
Tsai, W.-T. D. (2011) “Rethinking Formal Licensing,” Paper presented at Glow in Asia: Workshop for
Young Scholars, Mie University, September 8, 2011.
Ueda, Y. and T. Haraguchi (2008) “Plurality in Japanese and Chinese,” Nanzan Linguistics Special
Issue 3.2, 229–242.
Watanabe, A. (2006) “Functional Projections of Nominals in Japanese: Syntax of Classifiers,” Natural
Language & Linguistic Theory 24, 241–306.
Watanabe, A. (2010) “Notes on Nominal Ellipsis and the Nature of no and Classifiers in Japanese,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19, 61–74.

-201- 201 -CASE CHECKING/VALUATION IN JAPANESE: MOVE, AGREE OR MERGE? *Mamoru Saito
Nanzan University

1. Introduction
Case marking in Japanese has been investigated within the generative framework sincethe 1960’s, and various proposals have been made, reflecting the development of syntactic
theory. Over a decade, Chomsky (2000, 2008) has been pursuing an approach to associate
Case with -feature agreement. According to this approach, nominative, for example, obtains
as in (1).

(1)

Agree
T { : __ } [ … DP {, Case: __} …]
Value

T, with unvalued -features, probes and enters into Agree relation with a DP with an unvalued
Case feature. As a result of this Agree relation, T obtains the values for its -features from the
DP and values the Case of the DP as nominative. This approach, too, has been applied toJapanese with some fruitful results in works such as Ura (1999), Hiraiwa (2001a) and
Takahashi (2010).
Particularly noteworthy in the light of this approach is the fact that PPs are Case marked
extensively in Japanese. For example, (1) is an example of a “tough-sentence” with anominative PP subject.
(2)

Koko-kara-ga
huzi-san-ni nobori-yasu-i
here-from-NOM Mt. Fuji-DAT climb-easy-Pres‘It is easy to climb Mt. Fuji from here.’

PPs are required to have genitive Case within a projection of N, as the examples in (3) show.

* This is a shortened version of the paper presented at the GLOW in Asia Workshop for Young
Scholars, held on September 7–9, 2011 at Mie University. The material was presented also in seminars
at Keio University, University of Connecticut and University of Maryland, and in a workshop at
Nanzan University. I would like to thank the audiences at these places, especially, Hisatsugu Kitahara,
Hideki Kishimoto, Norbert Hornstein and eljko Bokovi, for helpful comments. The research
reported here was supported in part by the Nanzan University Pache Research Grant I-A (2011).

-203-

2008

(3)

2012









a. Taroo-no oya-e-noizon
Taroo-GEN parents-to-GEN dependence‘Taroo’s dependence on his parents’b. ziyuu-kara-no
toohi
freedom-from-GEN escape‘escape from freedom’

As PPs, as opposed to DPs, apparently lack -features, it is not obvious how Chomsky’s
approach can be extended to them.
It should be noted that whether the Case markers on PPs are indeed Case in the usual
sense has been controversial. As (4) shows, any DP or PP in a projection of N (and D)
accompanies no whether it is an argument or an adjunct.
(4)

kaze-de-no
kessekiHanako-no kinoo-no
Hanako-GEN yesterday-GEN cold-with-GEN absence‘Hanako’s absence yesterday due to a cold’

Okutsu (1974) proposes that the no attached to PPs and adjunct DPs is the prenominal form of
the copula da as opposed to the genitive no. Watanabe (2010) assumes a similar distinction,
calling the former no a ‘linker’. On the other hand, An (2009) discusses the Koreancounterpart of no, uy, and proposes that it is a kind of a prenominal inflection in all contexts,
and consequently, that Korean does not have genitive Case in the usual sense. The basic idea
is that the uy/no on PPs and adjunct DPs should be accounted for as a prenominal marker, andonce this is done, the account should automatically extend to argument DPs as well.
In this paper, I basically follow An’s (2009) approach, although I continue to call no thegenitive Case since I think the issue is merely terminological. This is after all the traditional
analysis: Bedell (1972) presents an analysis where no is inserted after any prenominal DP and
PP. As this approach does not differentiate no on argument DPs from that on PPs, it implies
that genitive in Japanese is independent of -feature agreement. In this paper, I extend An’s
proposal and suggest that Case in Japanese is in general part of the operation, Merge, instead.
Just as Case in English is required for Agree and is valued through Agree, I suggest that Casein Japanese is required for Merge and is valued through Merge. For no, for example, I proposethat Case is required on DPs and PPs for merger with a nominal projection, and is valued as
genitive through merger with N-D.
In the following section, I briefly discuss the distribution and interpretation of
nominative objects and show that it is desirable to seek an alternative to the Agree-based
analysis for this case also. In Section 3, I introduce the Merge-based analysis and illustrate itwith some concrete examples. In Section 4, I discuss some consequences of the analysis. I
first show that the analysis allows a rather straightforward account of the distribution of-204- 204 -Case Checking/Valuation in Japanese (M. Saito)

genitive arguments in prenominal sentential modifiers. Then, I argue that it opens up a way toapply Kayne’s (1994) LCA to Japanese and derive the head-finality of its phrase structure.
Section 5 concludes the paper.
2. A Little Historical Background on the Analysis of Nominative Objects
In Japanese, the object is normally in accusative as in (5a), but carries nominative Case
when the predicate is stative. (5b) is a representative example.1(5)

a. Taroo-ga
wani-o/*-gatabe-ta (koto)
Taroo-NOM alligator-ACC/-NOM eat-Past fact‘(the fact that) Taroo ate alligator meat’(koto)
b. Hanako-ni/-ga
bakudai-na syakkin-ga/*-o ar-u
Hanako-DAT/-NOM immense debt-NOM/-ACC have-Pres fact‘(the fact that) Hanako has a huge debt’
wani-o/-gatabe-rare-ru (koto)c. Taroo-ga
Taroo-NOM alligator-ACC/-NOM eat-can-Pres fact‘(the fact that) Taroo can eat alligator meat’

As the predicate in (5c) consists of the non-stative tabe ‘eat’ and the stative verbal suffix(rar)e ‘can’, the object can be in either accusative or nominative. The distribution andinterpretation of nominative objects as in (5b–c) have been a central topic of research inJapanese syntax, especially in the past twenty years. In this section, I first discuss the
movement analysis of Tada (1992) and Koizumi (1999), and then go over Ura’s (1999)
Agree-based analysis. Both approaches have provided much insight into the phenomenon, but
I argue that neither of them is satisfactory.
2.1. Tada and Koizumi’s Overt Movement Analysis
Tada’s (1992) discussion of the contrast in (6), originally observed in Sano (1985), has
renewed interest in Japanese nominative objects among syntacticians.
(6)

a. Kiyomi-wa migime-dake-otumur-e-ru (can > only)
Kiyomi-TOP right.eye-only-ACC close-can-Pres‘Kiyomi can wink with her right eye.’1

Some predicates allow the subject to be in dative when the object is in nominative. Ar ‘be, have’ in(5b) is one of them.

-205- 205 -

2008

2012







tumur-e-ru (only > can)b. Kiyomi-wa migime-dake-ga
Kiyomi-TOP right.eye-only-NOM close-can-Pres‘It is only her right eye that Kiyomi can close.’
It had been assumed that Case on the object has little effect, if any, on interpretation, but theseexamples indicate that nominative objects take wider scope than accusative objects. The
accusative object in (6a) scopes under the higher predicate e ‘can’ but the nominative object
in (6b) scopes over it.2 Tada proposed that this is because accusative is checked within the
projection of the verb tumur ‘close’ while the nominative is licensed within the projection of
the stative verbal affix e ‘can’. According to his analysis, the nominative object in (6b) moves
as in (7) and hence, takes wide scope over e ‘can’.3(7)[TP Kiyomi-wa [T’ [VP [V’ [VP right.eye-only-NOM close]-can]]-Pres.]]

Koizumi (1998), on the other hand, observes that nominative objects take yet higher
scope than predicted by Tada’s analysis. He shows that nominative objects even scope overnegation as in (8).
(8)

migime-dake-ga
tumur-e-na-i(koto) (only > not > can)Kiyomi-ga
Kiyomi-NOM right-eye-only-NOM close-can-Neg-Pres fact‘(the fact that) it is only her right eye that Kiyomi cannot close’

He then proposes that nominative objects are licensed within the projection of T as in (9).
(9)[TP Kiyomi-wa [T’ [T’ [NegP [VP [VP right.eye-only-NOM close]-can]-Neg]-Pres.]]]Koizumi’s analysis is attractive as it implies that nominative is licensed uniformly by T
whether it is on the subject or on the object. However, it shares a problem with Tada’s
analysis, to which I now turn.
The problem is that the movement operation illustrated in (7) and (9) does not observe
the locality expected of NP-movement.4 Let us first consider the example of causative in (10)because the point can be best illustrated with this construction.
2

Nomura (2005) presents some examples in which nominative objects seem to scope under e ‘can’and questions the Sano-Tada generalization. However, as the pattern in (6) is observed quite generally,
I believe it reflects a hierarchical relation in phrase structure as Tada proposed. See Takahashi (2010)
for an analysis based on the assumption that nominative objects can take narrow scope.
3

Tada (1992) assumes the AGR-based Case theory and proposes that the nominative object moves to
the Spec position of AGR projected over e ‘can’. I present a simplified version of his analysis here.

4

For a more detailed discussion on this point, see Saito (1982) and the references cited there.

-206- 206 -Case Checking/Valuation in Japanese (M. Saito)(10)tabe]]-sase-ta (koto)
Hanakoi-ga [vP Tarooj-ni [VP zibuni,j-no wani-oHanako-NOM Taroo-DAT self-GEN alligator-ACC eat-make-Past fact‘(the fact that) Hanako made Taroo eat her/his (pet) alligator’

It has been known since Kuroda (1965) that the causative morpheme sase takes a clausal
complement. (10) confirms this. The causee Taroo can be the antecedent of the subjectoriented reflexive zibun, and hence, it should be the subject of the embedded clause. I assume
that the clausal complement is a vP, following Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004). The
hypothesis is further confirmed by the fact that the object cannot be passivized out of acausative complement as shown in (11).
(11) * wani-gai
Hanako-niyotte [vP Tarooj-ni [VP ti tabe]]-sase-rare-ta(koto)
alligator-NOM Hanako-by
Taroo-DAT
eat-make-Passive-Past fact
‘Lit. (the fact that) the alligator was made by Hanako to be eaten by Taroo’
This is expected as the movement crosses the embedded subject Taroo in violation ofminimality.
Let us return to nominative objects with this background. As shown in (12), the object in
the causative construction can be in nominative when the potential suffix (rar)e ‘can’ isattached to the causative verb.
(12)tabe]]-sase-rare-ru (koto)
Hanako-ga[vP Taroo-ni [VP wani-o/-ga
Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT alligator-ACC/-NOM eat-make-can-Past fact‘(the fact that) Hanako can make Taroo eat alligator meat’

This is totally unexpected under the movement analysis of nominative objects. According toKoizumi’s (1998) analysis, for example, the nominative object in (12) must move to the innerSpec of T to have its Case licensed. But then, the movement should violate minimality exactly
as in the case of (11). The same problem arises with Tada’s analysis because the nominative
object must move across the embedded subject in order to land within the projection of (rar)e‘can’.
Koizumi (1998), as noted above, demonstrated that nominative objects take scope overnegation and argued that this is because their Case is licensed by T. The discussion above,
however, indicates that they do not move to a Spec position of T. These considerations
naturally lead to the hypothesis that T values nominative through the operation Agree. In thenext subsection, I consider Ura’s (1999) Agree-based analysis.
2.2. Ura’s Analysis with Covert Feature Movement/Agree
To my knowledge, Ura (1999) is one of the first works that propose an analysis of-207- 207 -

2008

2012









nominative objects in terms of Agree.5 He first argues against Koizumi’s (1998) movement
analysis based on examples of the following kind:(13)

Hanakoi-ni/-ga
Tarooj-ga zibuni,*j-no ie-desikar-e-ru(koto)
Hanako-DAT/-NOM Taroo-NOM self-GEN house-at scold-can-Pres fact‘(the fact that) Hanako can scold Taroo at her/*his house’

This example shows that a nominative object does not qualify as the antecedent for the
subject-oriented zibun ‘self’. However, Koizumi’s analysis predicts that it should if subject isdefined as a phrase in TP Spec. Ura concludes then that nominative objects do not move to a
position within the projection of T.6
Ura, then, goes on to propose that T checks the Case feature of nominative objects
through Agree. This predicts that nominative objects stay in situ, and hence, readily accountsfor (12), where a nominative object appears in the complement of a causative verb. But a
problem remains with the scope property of nominative objects. Koizumi’s crucial example in(8) is repeated below as (14).
(14)

Kiyomi-ga
migime-dake-ga
tumur-e-na-i(koto) (only > not > can)Kiyomi-NOM right-eye-only-NOM close-can-Neg-Pres fact‘(the fact that) it is only her right eye that Kiyomi cannot close’

For this, Ura suggests that the Agree relation yields the wide scope of the object. As T
licenses the nominative Case on the object, the object takes scope at T.
However, it is shown in Lasnik and Saito (1991) that Agree relation does not affectscope. The examples in (15) demonstrate this.
(15)

a. Fewer than five knightsi [VP appeared ti at the gate] every day(fewer than five > every, every > fewer than five)b. There [VP appeared fewer than five knights at the gate] every day(every > fewer than five)In (15a), fewer than five knights moves from the object position to TP Spec. Thus, theexample exhibits a scope ambiguity between this DP and every day. In (15b), on the other
hand, T enters into Agree relation with the DP, but the DP stays in situ. In this case, it cannot
scope over every day. This shows that Agree does not suffice to account for the wide scope
5

His analysis appeals to covert feature movement. But it is equivalent to Agree as covert feature
movement was in effect reanalyzed as Agree in Chomsky (2000).

6Note that examples like (10) indicate that the antecedent of zibun is not limited to phrases in TP Spec.
Hence, it is necessary to reexamine what constitutes “subjects” in the relevant sense to see if thisargument goes through. See Saito (2011) for relevant discussion.

-208- 208 -Case Checking/Valuation in Japanese (M. Saito)

property of Japanese nominative objects.
3. A Preliminary Merge-Based Analysis of Japanese Case
It was argued in the preceding section that neither movement nor Agree successfully
captures the distribution and interpretation of nominative objects. In this section, I suggest analternative Merge-based analysis. In Section 3.1, I motivate the general approach. Then, in
Section 3.2, I present the details of the analysis with some concrete examples.
3.1. What is Japanese Case for?
Chomsky (2000) proposes that Case is a reflex of -feature agreement. Case is required
on a DP to participate in agreement and is checked through the agreement. This is embedded
in a system with feature-inheritance in Chomsky (2008). It is proposed there that phase heads
are the locus of unvalued/uninterpretable features. Thus, C, for example, carries -features
and the EPP, and transmits them to T as illustrated in (16).
(16)[ C{, EPP} [TP DP [ T [vP DP{Case} ….

T, then, probes a DP with unvalued Case feature and enters into Agree relation with the DP.
The -features on T are valued by the DP and the Case feature on the DP is valued asnominative by T through this Agree relation. Finally, the EPP on T raises the DP to its Spec.
Thus, Case is required for -feature agreement and is valued through -feature agreement.
However, as noted at the outset of this paper, Case is observed on PPs extensively inJapanese. The relevant examples in (2) and (3a) are repeated below as (17a–b).
(17)

a. Koko-kara-ga
huzi-san-ni nobori-yasu-i
here-from-NOM Mt. Fuji-DAT climb-easy-Pres‘It is easy to climb Mt. Fuji from here.’izon
b. Taroo-no oya-e-no
Taroo-GEN parents-to-GEN dependence‘Taroo’s dependence on his parents’

The nominative Case in (17a) and the genitive Case on PP in (17b) cannot be a reflex of feature agreement as PPs do not carry -features. Then, what is Japanese Case for if it is notpart of -feature agreement?
Since the only operations in Minimalist syntax are Agree and Merge, Merge is a
plausible candidate. That is, if Case is not a precondition for a phrase to participate in Agree,
it is likely to be required of a phrase to participate in Merge. For genitive Case, this is in fact a
restatement of An’s (2009) idea noted above that genitive is a kind of prenominal inflection.

-209- 209 -

2008

2012







The initial hypothesis can be stated as in (18).
(18)

a. Case is required on DPs and PPs for merger with N and D.
b. Case is required on argument DPs for merger with V and A.
c. Case is required on argument DPs and PPs for merger with v.

(18b–c) stipulate that an argument PP must have a Case in a sentence only when it is a subject
as in (17a).
If Case in Japanese is required for Merge, it seems equally plausible that it is valued bythis operation. Let us then hypothesize that Case is valued through Merge as in (19).
(19)

a. Case is valued as nominative by merger with T-C.
b. Case is valued as accusative by merger with (transitive) V-v.
c. Case is valued as genitive by merger with N-D.

If the locus of nominative is C and it is inherited by T, this yields a more or less standard
derivation for examples like (20a).
(20)

a. Taroo-ga
hasir-uTaroo-NOM run-Pres‘Taroo runs.’b. [CP [TP Taroo-Casei [T’ [vP ti [[VP hasir ] v]] T]] C]As Taroo carries Case, it can be merged at vP Spec for thematic interpretation. The Case,however, is not valued at this position. The DP then must move and merge at TP Spec for theCase to be valued nominative.
If this mechanism is assumed as is, it leads to a notational variant of Koizumi’s (1998)
analysis for nominative objects. They must carry Case to be merged at the object position forthematic interpretation. If the V-v in the relevant cases lacks the ability to value accusative,
they must move to TP Spec to have their Case valued as nominative. But it was shown in thepreceding section that they do not move to TP Spec. It seems then that we have a paradox.
Nominative objects must be merged with T but they do not move to TP Spec. In the following
section, I suggest a way out of this problem, developing Shimada (2007) and Tonoike’s(2009) hypothesis on phrase structure building.
3.2. Phrase Structure Building with Excorporation
Shimada (2007) and Tonoike (2009) propose an original way to derive phrase structure.
For clauses, they assume that the derivation starts with a complex of heads, C-T-v-V. If theverb is transitive, the object merges with this complex as in the first step of (21).

-210- 210 -Case Checking/Valuation in Japanese (M. Saito)(21)

C-T-v-V {C-T-v-V, DP1} {C-T-v, {V, DP1}} {DP2, {C-T-v, {V, DP1}}}
 {C-T, {DP2, {v, {V, DP1}}}} {DP2, {C-T, {DP2, {v, {V, DP1}}}}} {C, {DP2, {C-T, {DP2, {v, {V, DP1}}}}}}

Then, C-T-v excorporates as in step 2, creating a vP. This vP merges with the subject DP instep 3, and C-T exporporates in step 4 to create a TP. The subject is internally merged withthis TP in step 5. The final product after the excorporation of C in step 6 is the CP structure.
Both Shimada and Tonoike propose this derivation to maintain the extension condition in
the strict form. Shimada argues that it allows head movement to observe the condition.
Tonoike, on the other hand, points out that the derivation of Chomsky (2008) illustrated in(16) forces a counter-cyclic movement of the subject to TP Spec. This problem does not arisein the derivation in (21).
The Shimada–Tonoike proposal is of particular interest in the present context because it
allows a nominative object to merge with T without moving to TP Spec. Recall the problem
noted in the preceding subsection: nominative is valued through merger with T but
nominative objects do not raise to TP Spec. In step 1 of (21), the object is directly mergedwith a complex that includes T as well as V. In the remainder of this section, I adapt theirmain idea and suggest a way to account for the distributions of Cases in Japanese.
First, I suggest that a head complex is formed initially because a derivation starts with aphase head and proceeds to satisfy selectional requirements. Let us take (22) to illustrate how
this works.
(22)

Hanako-ga
Taroo-osikat-ta
Hanako-NOM Taroo-ACC scold-Past‘Hanako scolded Taroo.’

As vP is the smallest phase in the example, the derivation starts with v. It first merges with V
as in (23a) because it selects for a V.
(23)

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.

{V, v} (accusative){DP1-ACC, {V, v}}{{DP1-ACC, V}, v}{DP2-Case, {{DP1-ACC, V}, v}}{T, C} (nominative){{DP2-Case, {{DP1-ACC, V}, v}}, {T, C}}{DP2-NOM, {{DP2-Case, {{DP1-ACC, V}, v}}, {T, C}}}{{DP2-NOM, {{DP2-Case, {{DP1-ACC, V}, v}}, T}}, C}

The object DP is merged in (23b) to satisfy the selectional requirement of V. As the merger isto V-v, the Case on the DP is valued as accusative. Then, v excorporates in (23c) to create a
vP as it should have VP as its complement. The subject DP is merged with this vP and-211- 211 -

2008

2012









satisfies the selectional requirement of v in (23d).
The derivation moves on to the next phase in (23e). The phase head C selects T, andhence the T-C complex is formed. vP is merged with this complex in (23f) because of theselectional property of T. At this stage, the Case on the subject is still unvalued. So the subject
DP internally merges with {vP, {T, C}} as in (23g) so that the Case is valued as nominative.
The assumption here is that the Case on XP is valued if XP is merged with a syntactic object
that contains the value assigner. In the case of (23g), this in effect means that T-C values
nominative on XP in its Spec. Finally, C excorporates to complete the derivation in (23h).
The in-situ property of nominative objects follows with one additional assumption: I
assume, following Takahashi (2010), that v is a phase head if and only if it values accusative.
Let us consider (24) for illustration.
(24)

Hanako-ga
rosiago-ga
wakar-u(koto)
Hanako-NOM Russian-NOM understand-Pres fact‘(the fact that) Hanako understands Russian’As v in this example does not value accusative, it is not a phase head by assumption. Then,the derivation starts with the only phase head C as in (25a).
(25)

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.

{T, C} (nominative){v, {T, C}}{V, {v, {T, C}}}
{DP1-NOM, {V, {v, {T, C}}}}{{DP1-NOM, V}, {v, {T, C}}}
{DP2-NOM, {{DP1-NOM, V}, {v, {T, C}}}}{{DP2-NOM, {{DP1-NOM, V}, v}}, {T, C}}{DP2-NOM, {{DP2-NOM, {{DP1-NOM, V}, v}}, {T, C}}}{{DP2-NOM, {{DP2-NOM, {{DP1-NOM, V}, v}}, T}}, C}

The derivation proceeds as in (25b) and (25c) as T and v select v and V respectively. In (25d),the object is merged with this complex and the Case is valued as nominative simultaneously
because the complex contains T-C. Then, v-T-C excorporates in (25e) to yield a vP. The
external argument is merged with this vP in (25f), and its Case is valued as nominative. T-C
excorporates in (25g), and I assume here that the subject is raised to TP Spec as in (25h) tosatisfy the EPP requirement of T-C.7 Finally, C excorporates to complete the derivation in(25i). Note that the object is merged at the thematic position and its Case is valued asnominative at this position by T-C. Thus, this analysis allows nominative objects to have theirCases valued by T-C without moving to TP Spec, a desirable result.

7

Whether this EPP-triggered raising applies is not important for the proposal made here. See Saito(2011) and the references cited there for discussion on EPP in Japanese.

-212- 212 -Case Checking/Valuation in Japanese (M. Saito)

The analysis readily extends to genitives. I use (26) to demonstrate this.
(26)

Taroo-no yooroppa-e-no ryokoo
Taroo-GEN Europe-to-GEN trip
‘Taroo’s trip to Europe’

The only phase head, I assume, is D. The derivation in (27) starts out with the merger of N
and D as in (27a).
(27)

a.
b.
c.
d.

{N, D} (genitive){PP-GEN, {N, D}}{DP-GEN, {PP-GEN, {N, D}}}{{DP-GEN, {PP-GEN, N}}, D}

Then, the PP and the subject DP are merged as in (27b) and (27c) respectively. Recall thatboth must have Case to be merged in this context as specified in (18a). And their Cases areboth valued as genitive because of the presence of N-D in the syntactic objects they merge
with. The derivation is completed with the excorporation of D in (27d).
The illustrations so far, I believe, made it clear how the proposed Merge-based analysis
works. Instead of going over more examples to demonstrate its empirical coverage, I discuss acouple of consequences of the analysis in the next section.
4.  Some Consequences of the Merge-Based Analysis
I first consider the nominative/genitive alternation in prenominal sentential modifiers in
Section 4.1 and demonstrate that the Merge-based analysis allows a straightforward analysis.
Then, in Section 4.2, I return to the wide scope property of nominative objects and show thatits Merge-based analysis opens up a new way to apply Kayne’s (1994) LCA to Japanese.
4.1. The Nominative/Genitive Alternation
An alternation between nominative and genitive is observed in Japanese prenominal
sentential modifiers as in (28).
(28)

Taroo-ga/-no
ongaku-ga/-nokik-e-rubasyoTaroo-NOM/-GEN music-NOM/-GEN listen-can-Pres place‘a place where Taroo can isten to music’As the predicate kik-e-ru ‘listen-can-Pres’ in the relative clause is stative, it is not surprisingthat the subject Taroo and the object ongaku ‘music’ can both appear in nominative. What is
peculiar is that both can appear in genitive as well.
I assume here, following Maki and Uchibori (2008), that genitive is possible in this-213- 213 -

2008

2012









context because of the presence of the relative head, or more precisely, N-D.8 This implies
that a relative clause does not constitute a phase as it does not block the relevant relation
between the relative head and the genitive phrase(s) within the relative clause. This is
assumed, for example, in Ochi (2001), which proposes that D licenses the genitive(s) throughAgree.9 It is also plausible in the light of Murasugi’s (1991) proposal that Japanese relative
clauses are TPs and not CPs. For example, they never contain relative pronouns orcomplementizers. Given the hypothesis entertained here that nominative is valued by T-C,
Japanese relative clauses must be headed by C. I assume then that the C is “defective,”probably the lowest C, the Subject head, in Rizzi’s (1997) CP hierarchy. It is not a phase headbut participates in the valuation of nominative.
Given these assumptions, the nominative/genitive alternation in (28) follows from theMerge-based analysis outlined in the preceding section. (29) is a slightly simplified derivationof the example that takes kik-e ‘listen-can’ as a simple stative verb.
(29)a. {N, D} (genitive)b. {C, {N, D}}
c. {T, {C, {N, D}}} (nominative)10
d. {v, {T, {C, {N, D}}}}e. {V, {v, {T, {C, {N, D}}}}}
f. {DP1-NOM/GEN, {V, {v, {T, {C, {N, D}}}}}}
g. {{DP1-NOM/GEN, V}, {v, {T, {C, {N, D}}}}}
h. {DP2-NOM/GEN, {{DP1-NOM/GEN, V}, {v, {T, {C, {N, D}}}}}}
i. {{DP2-NOM/GEN, {{, V}, v}}, {T, {C, {N, D}}}},  = DP1-NOM/GEN
j. {DP2-NOM/GEN, {{DP2-NOM/GEN, {{, V}, v}}, {T, {C, {N, D}}}}}
k. {{DP2-NOM/GEN, {{DP2-NOM/GEN, {{, V}, v}}, T}}, {C, {N, D}}}l. {{{DP2-NOM/GEN, {{DP2-NOM/GEN, {{, V}, v}}, T}}, C}, {N, D}}
m. {{{{DP2-NOM/GEN, {{DP2-NOM/GEN, {{, V}, v}}, T}}, C}, N}, D}

The head complex V-v-T-C-N-D is formed in (29a–e). The object is merged in (29f), and its
Case can be valued as nominative or genitive as the head complex contains T-C as well as ND. v-T-C-N-D excorporates in (29g) and the subject DP is merged in (29h). Here too, the Caseof the subject can be valued as nominative or genitive for the same reason. (29i) shows the8

See Hiraiwa (2001b) for an alternative and Maki and Uchibori (2008) for discussion of the issues
related to this assumption.

9

Ochi (2001) actually proposes an analysis in terms of covert feature movement. But his analysis canbe readily restated in terms of Agree.

10Here, T and C are not directly merged. The tacit assumption here, informally speaking, is that C is
the head (or label) of  = {C, {N, D}} and hence, {T, } values nominative. Note that DP and V arethematically related, for example, in {DP, {V, v}}. Then, V must be “visible” to DP in thisconfiguration just as C is visible to T in {T, {C, {N, D}}}. I leave the precise formulation of“visibility” to future research.

-214- 214 -Case Checking/Valuation in Japanese (M. Saito)

excorporation of T-C-N-D. The subject is internally merged to TP as in (29j) if this isrequired by the EPP. Three successive excorporations in (29k–m) complete the derivation.
This derivation demonstrates that once the defectiveness of C is assumed, which seems
necessary under any account, the nominative/genitive alternation follows from the Mergebased analysis of Japanese Case. A desirable consequence of this approach is that it
automatically explains the absence of genitive on PPs and adjunct DPs in prenominal
sentential modifiers. As noted above, genitive is required on adjunct DPs within simple DPs.
Another relevant example is shown in (30a).
(30)a. Hanako-no kinoo-*(no)ikisakiHanako-GEN yesterday-GEN destination‘Hanako’s destination yesterday’
it-ta
tokorob. Hanako-no kinoo-(*no)
Hanako-GEN yesterday-GEN go-Past place‘the place that Hanako went yesterday’

However, those DPs cannot be in genitive in relative clauses as (30b) shows. This follows
from the hypothesis that Case is required for Merge as in (18), repeated below in (31).
(31)

a. Case is required on DPs and PPs for merger with N/D.
b. Case is required on argument DPs for merger with V and A.
c. Case is required on argument DPs and PPs for merger with v.

The adjunct DP, kinoo ‘yesterday’, is merged with N in (30a) and hence, must carry Case.
The Case is valued as genitive by N-D. That in (30b), on the other hand, is merged with V. As
only argument DPs are required to have Case in this context, no Case shows up on kinoo‘yesterday’ in (30b).
If one adopts the Agree-based analysis, it would probably be necessary to assume thatthe no on Hanako is Case that is valued by Agree while that on kinoo ‘yesterday’ issomething else, a linker or prenominal inflection, that appears only prenominally. There is noneed to make this distinction with the Merge-based analysis proposed here.
4.2. Head-Finality as a Consequence of Covert Excorporation
In this section, I return to the wide scope property of nominative objects and discuss its
consequence for linearization. I argue that the proposals on phrase structure building and Casevaluation outlined above open up a new way to derive the head-finality of Japanese from
Kayne’s (1994) LCA.
Let us consider again the contrast discussed by Tada (1992) in (6), repeated below in(32).

-215- 215 -

2008

(32)

2012







tumur-e-ru (can > only)
a. Kiyomi-wa migime-dake-o
Kiyomi-TOP right.eye-only-ACC close-can-Pres‘Kiyomi can wink with her right eye.’tumur-e-ru (only > can)b. Kiyomi-wa migime-dake-ga
Kiyomi-TOP right.eye-only-NOM close-can-Pres‘It is only her right eye that Kiyomi can close.’

The narrow scope of the accusative object in (32a) should be attributed the fact that theaccusative is valued by the V-v associated with the non-stative tumur ‘close’. Then, e ‘can’takes a vP complement, and the example should be derived as in (33)–(34).
(33)

a.
b.
c.
d.

{close, v} (accusative){DP only-ACC, {close, v}}, DP = right eye{{DP only-ACC, close}, v}{K-Case, {{DP only-ACC, close}, v}}, K = Kiyomi(33) shows the derivation of the embedded vP. The accusative is valued when the object ismerged with V-v in (33c).
(34) is the derivation of the matrix CP phase.
(34)

e. {T, C} (nominative)f. {v, {T, C}}
g. {can, {v, {T, C}}}h. {{K-Case, {{ DP only-ACC , V}, v}}, { can , {v, {T, C}}}}, V = closei. {{{K-Case, {{DP only-ACC, V}, v}}, can}, {v, {T, C}}}
j. {K-Case, {{{K-Case, {{DP only-ACC, V}, v}}, can}, {v, {T, C}}}}11
k. {{K-Case, {{{K-Case, {{DP only-ACC, V}, v}}, can}, v}}, {T, C}}
l. {K-NOM, {{K-Case, {{{K-Case, {{DP only-ACC, V}, v}}, can}, v}}, {T, C}}}m. {{K-NOM, {{K-Case, {{{K-Case, {{DP only-ACC, V}, v}}, can}, v}}, T}}, C}(34e–g) form the matrix can-v-T-C complex. Then, in (34h), the embedded vP is merged withthis complex. The accusative object is contained within the vP while can is plausibly the head(or label) of the head complex. (See Fn.10 for relevant discussion.) Then, the scope relation,
can > only, can be read off from this structure as illustrated in (35).

11

The subject Kiyomi is the external argument of tumur ‘close’ as well as of e ‘can’. In (34j), I assume
that it moves from the embedded vP Spec to the matrix vP Spec in order to account for this. But analternative with PRO in the embedded vP Spec also serves the purpose.

-216- 216 -Case Checking/Valuation in Japanese (M. Saito)

(35)

can
vP

can
v

can
… DP only …

v

T
T

C

Thus, the narrow scope property of accusative objects seems straightforward. On theother hand, the wide scope property of nominative objects has an interesting implication. Let
us consider the derivation of (32b) in (36).
(36)

a. {T, C} (nominative)b. {v, {T, C}}c. {can, {v, {T, C}}}d. {close, {can, {v, {T, C}}}}12
e. { DP only-NOM, {close, { can , {v, {T, C}}}}}
f. {{ DP only-NOM , close}, { can , {v, {T, C}}}}k. {{{DP only-NOM, close}, can}}, {v, {T, C}}}
l. {K-Case, {{{DP only-NOM, close}, can}}, {v, {T, C}}}}m. {{K-Case, {{{DP only-NOM, close}, can}}, v}}, {T, C}}
n. {K-NOM, {{K-Case, {{{DP only-NOM, close}, can}}, v}}, {T, C}}}o. {{K-NOM, {{K-Case, {{{DP only-NOM, close}, can}}, v}}, T}}, C}

As no Case is valued accusative in this example, the only phase head is C. The derivation,
then, starts with C, and the close-can-v-T-C complex is formed in (36a–d). The object ismerged with this complex in (36e), and the Case is valued nominative because of the T-C in
the complex. At this point, the object c-commands can as in (37).
(37)

close
close

DP only-NOM
close

can
can

v
v

T
T

C

This accounts for the wide scope of the nominative object, but there is one further thingthat must be said. Note that can-v-T-C excorporates in the next step of the derivation, (36f).
The excorporation creates a configuration similar to (35). Then, if the scope relation is
calculated based on this structure, it is predicted incorrectly that nominative objects at least12

I assume, following Bobaljik and Wurmbrand (2007), that e ‘can’ selects for a V and takes a VP
complement when the object of the V is in nominative. This is not crucial for the analysis proposedhere.

-217- 217 -

2008

2012







can have narrow scope. This indicates that excorporation is “invisible” and ignored in thecalculation of the scope relation.
Here, there must be a reason for the “invisibility” of excorporation for scope. And thedesired result is obtained if the excorporation is covert. As is well known, Japanese is alanguage with scope rigidity. Thus, (38) is unambiguous and its interpretation reflects thehierarchical relation of the two quantified phrases.13(38)

daremo-oaisitei-ru (koto) ( > )
dareka-ga
someone-NOM everyone-ACC love-Pres fact‘(the fact that) someone loves everyone’The scope relations in (32) can be understood as instances of this general phenomenon. As
Kuroda (1971) points out, overt movement affects scope relations. (39a–b) are both
ambiguous.
(39)

dareka-ga
ti aisitei-ru (koto) ( > ,  > )a. daremo-oi
everyone-ACC someone-NOM love-Pres fact‘(the fact that) someone loves everyone’
daremo-ga
ti aisitei-ru (koto) ( > ,  > )b. dareka-oi
someone-ACC everyone-NOM love-Pres fact‘(the fact that) everyone loves someone’But covert movement should have no effects on scope. If QR, for example, can broaden thescope possibilities, (38) should not be unambiguous to begin with. Hence, the account of(32b) based on (37) can be maintained if excorporation is covert in Japanese.14
Although this may sound like a stipulation to accommodate the wide scope property of
nominative objects, it predicts the head-finality of Japanese in an interesting way. Kayne(1994) proposes that linear order is derived from asymmetric c-command relations (Linear
Correspondence Axiom, LCA). Let us consider the configuration in (40), assuming
Chomsky’s (1994) refinement that only maximal projections and heads count in thecalculation of linear order.

13

There are variations among speakers with this. But as far as I know, the strongly preferred readingof (38) is the one with someone taking scope over everyone for all speakers.

14

Note that this does not alter the derivations illustrated above if all operations, overt and covert, takeplace in a single cycle. I assume with Bobaljik (1995) that overt and covert movements apply in thesame way, the only difference being that the phonetic features are interpreted at the landing site in theformer while they receive interpretation at the initial site in the case of the latter.

-218- 218 -Case Checking/Valuation in Japanese (M. Saito)

Xmax

(40)
Wmax

X
Ymax

X

Zmax

Y
Z

Wmax > X, Wmax > Ymax, Wmax > Y, Wmax > Zmax,….

Wmax > Z, X > Y, X > Zmax, X > Z, Y > Z, …

Stated on the right are the asymmetrical c-command relations observed with this structure.
The linear order, Wmax > X > Y > Z, is derived from these relations.
Kayne’s LCA predicts the head-initial, spec–head–complement order. Hence, heentertains the possibility that the head-final, spec–complement–head order is derived by
movement of the complement to a position that asymmetrically c-commands the head.
However, the head-finality of Japanese automatically follows without further complication if
excorporation is covert in the language. The only additional assumption required is virtually
the definition of overt/covert movement: what enters into the calculation of linear order is thelanding site in the case of overt movement and the initial site in the case of covert movement.
Let us consider the vP structure in (41) for illustration.
vmax

(41)
Subj

v
max

V
Obj

(v)
Subj > Obj, Subj > V, Subj > vmax,

V
V

vmax

Obj > V, Obj > vmax

V and v merge first, and then the object DP merges with V-v. Then, v covertly excorporates
and internally merges with VP. Then, the subject DP is externally merged. Here, since theexcorporation is covert, the initial site of v counts in the calculation of linear order. Then, theasymmetric c-command relations on the right side obtain, yielding the subject–object–verb
order. The linear order of V and v is undetermined, but it can be reasonably assumed that v
cliticizes onto V. Thus, the head-finality of Japanese follows. As far as I can see, a derivation
always yields a head-final order when it starts with a phase head and the excorporation iscovert.
5. Conclusion and Further Issues
The main purpose of this paper was to suggest a Merge-based analysis of Case inJapanese. I first noted that an Agree-based analysis is untenable if a unified analysis is sought
for Cases on argument DPs and PPs/adjunct DPs. Then, I argued that the wide scope property
of nominative objects requires an alternative analysis on independent grounds. Given these
conclusions, I explored the possibility that Case in Japanese is part of Merge: it is required forMerge and valued through Merge. I presented a concrete analysis, extending Shimada (2007)-219- 219 -

2008

2012









and Tonoike’s (2009) hypothesis on phrase structure building, which involves excorporationof heads out of head complexes. Finally, I pointed out that the wide scope property of
nominative objects leads to the hypothesis that excorporation is covert in Japanese, andshowed that this hypothesis predicts the head-finality of Japanese from Kayne’s (1994) LCA.
In the discussion, I assumed that the proposed mode of phrase structure building applies
universally. If this is correct, the head-initial order should be a consequence of overt
excorporation. A vP in English, for example, would be derived as in (42) under this approach.
vmax

(42)
Subj

vmax
v

Subj
max

v
V
max

(v

head movement 

V
)

v
Vmax

V+v

Obj

V
max

V

(v

)

Obj
V

There are many possible ways to derive the head-initial order here. First, the structure isderived as illustrated on the left side with overt excorporation of v. This may suffice if theinitial site of v is totally invisible in the calculation of linear order. It is also possible that V
undergoes head movement to v as illustrated on the right side. In this case, the asymmetric ccommand relation of V+v and the object DP is clear if the initial site of V, which lacks
phonetic features, enters the calculation unlike the case of excorporation because it is where
the V is interpreted.
If this approach is tenable, then the head-parameter is reduced to whether excorporation
is overt or covert. On the other hand, it may turn out, as Hisa Kitahara suggests, that English
phrase structure is derived with V and the object merging first, as is usually assumed. In thiscase, Japanese employs the specific way of phrase structure building illustrated above because
Merge is Case-dependent in the language. This predicts that head-initial languages have
Agree-based Case systems while head-final languages have Merge-based ones. Although the
exploration of the two approaches undoubtedly raises a number of interesting issues, I mustleave it for another occasion.

References
An, D.-H. (2009) “A Note on Genitive Drop in Korean,” Nanzan Linguistics 5, 1–16.
Bedell, G. (1972) “On No.” In G. Bedell, ed., UCLA Papers in Syntax 3: Studies in East Asian Syntax.
Bobaljik, J. (1995) Morphosyntax: The Syntax of Verbal Inflection, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Bobaljik, J. and S. Wurmbrand (2007) “Complex Predicates, Aspect and Anti-Reconstruction,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16, 27–42.
Chomsky, N. (1994) “Bare Phrase Structure.” In G. Webelhuth, ed., Government and Binding Theory
and the Minimalist Program, Blackwell, Oxford, 383–439.

-220- 220 -Case Checking/Valuation in Japanese (M. Saito)

Chomsky, N. (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework.” In R. Martin, D. Michaels and J.
Uriagereka, eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 89–155.
Chomsky, N. (2008) “On Phases.” In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero and M. L. Zubizarreta, eds.,
Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, MIT
Press, Cambridge, Mass., 133–166.
Hiraiwa, K. (2001a) “Multiple Agree and the Defective Intervention Constraint in Japanese.” In O.
Matushansky et al., eds., Proceedings of the 1st HUMIT Student Conference in Language
Research (HUMIT 2000), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40, 67–80.
Hiraiwa, K. (2001b) “On Nominative-Genitive Conversion.” In E. Guerzoni and O. Matushansky, eds.,
A Few from Building E39: Papers in Syntax, Semantics and Their Interface, MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 39, 66–123.
Kayne, R. S. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Koizumi, M. (1998) “Remarks on Nominative Objects,” Journal of Japanese Linguistics 16, 39–66.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965) “Causative Forms in Japanese,” Foundations of Language 1, 30–50.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1971) “Remarks on the Notion of Subject with Reference to Words like Also, Even, orOnly (Part II),” Annual Bulletin 4, Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics,
University of Tokyo, 127–152.
Lasnik, H. and M. Saito (1991) “On the Subject of Infinitives,” Chicago Linguistic Society 27, 324–
343.
Maki, H. and A. Uchibori (2008) “Ga/No Conversion.” In S. Miyagawa and M. Saito, eds., The
Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, Oxford University Press, New York, 192–216.
Murasugi, K. (1991) Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Acquisition, andLearnability, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Murasugi, K. and T. Hashimoto (2004) “Three Pieces of Acquisition Evidence for the v-VP Frame,”
Nanzan Linguistics 1, 1–19.
Nomura, M. (2005) Nominative Case and Agree(ment), Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Ochi, M. (2001) “Move F and Ga/No Conversion in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 10,
247–286.
Okutsu, K. (1974) Seisei-Nihon-Bunpoo-Ron [A Generative Grammar of Japanese], Taishukan, Tokyo.
Rizzi, L. (1997) “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery.” In L. Haegeman, ed., Elements ofGrammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 281–
337.
Saito, M. (1982) “Case Marking in Japanese: A Preliminary Study,” unpublished manuscript, MIT.
Saito, M. (2011) “Two Notes on Feature Inheritance: A Parametric Variation in the Distribution of the
EPP,” Nanzan Linguistics 7, 43–61.
Sano, M. (1985) “LF Movement in Japanese,” Descriptive and Applied Linguistics 18, 245–259.
Shimada, J. (2007) “Head Movement, Binding Theory, and Phrase Structure,” unpublishedmanuscript, MIT.
Tada, H. (1992) “Nominative Objects in Japanese,” Journal of Japanese Linguistics 14, 91–108.
Takahashi, M. (2010) “Case Valuation, Phasehood, and Nominative-Accusative Conversion in
Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19, 319–355.
Tonoike, S. (2009) “Minimarisuto Puroguramu [Minimalist Program].” In H. Nakajima, ed.,Gengogaku-no Ryooiki [Subfields of Linguistics] 1, Asakura Shoten, Tokyo, 135–168.
Ura, H. (1999) “Checking Theory and Dative Subject Constructions in Japanese and Korean,” Journalof East Asian Linguistics 8, 223–254.
Watanabe, A. (2010) “Notes on Nominal Ellipsis and the Nature of no and Classifiers in Japanese,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19, 61–74.

-221- 221 -TWO NOTES ON MULTIPLE SLUICING IN CHINESE AND JAPANESE *Daiko Takahashi and Sichao Lin
Tohoku University

1.

Introduction

In this article we consider the cases of reduction of interrogative clauses in Mandarin
Chinese (henceforth, just Chinese) and Japanese where more than one remnant occurs. The
phenomenon in which interrogative clauses are shrunk has been called sluicing since Ross
(1969). The following is a typical example in English:(1)

John hid something in the drawer, but I don’t know what.

The verb in the second conjunct know selects an indirect question as its complement clause,
but seemingly the complement only consists of the wh-phrase in (1). According to Ross
(1969), the second conjunct is analyzed as follows:(2)

I don’t know [CP what [TP John hid t in the drawer ]]The complement clause in question is assumed to have a full-fledged interrogative clausal
structure underlyingly, with the TP part elided in PF under identity with the antecedent clause(ellipsis is indicated by the strikethrough). A similar phenomenon is observed in Chinese andJapanese (Inoue (1976), Takahashi (1994), and Wang (2002), among many others). The
following are typical examples of sluicing in the languages ((3–4) are from Japanese andChinese, respectively):1(3)

Ken-gadareka-ni
atta sooda.
Ken-NOM someone-DAT met I.heard
ka soozoodekinai.
Q cannot.imagine

Dakedo boku-wa dare-ni
but
I-TOP
who-DAT‘I heard Ken met someone. But I cannot imagine who.’* Some materials in the present article were presented in the first author’s graduate seminar at Tohoku
University in the 2011 fall semester. We would like to thank the participants, especially Zhixin Fang
and Kensuke Takita, for their helpful comments and suggestions. Needless to say, all the remaining
inadequacies are ours.
1

Just for expository convenience, we gloss the element shi used in the examples of Chinese sluicing
as FOC, which stands for a focus marker, though it is used as a copula in other environments. See
Wang (2002) for some discussions.

-223-

2008

(4)

Lisi
Lisi

2012





da-lemouren, dan
hit-ASP someone but



wo bu zhidao shi shei.
I
not know FOC who‘Lisi hit someone, but I don’t know who.’
In these cases, the second conjuncts contain incomplete embedded clauses, but they areinterpreted in the same way as the following complete sentences:(5)

Boku-wa Ken-ga
dare-niatta ka
I-TOP
Ken-NOM who-DAT met Q

soozoodekinai.
cannot.imagine‘I cannot imagine who Ken met.’(6)

Wo bu zhidao Lisi da-leshei.
Inot know Lisi hit-ASP who‘I don’t know who Lisi hit.’

It has been controversial in the literature whether cases of sluicing in Chinese and Japaneselike (3–4) can be analyzed in the same way as their counterparts in English, and if not, how
they should be treated (see, for instance, Nishiyama, Whitman, and Yi (1996), Saito (2004),
Wang (2002), and Wei (2004)). In this article we impeachably call the phenomenon indicatedin (3) and (4) sluicing just for ease of reference.
While each of the examples in (3) and (4) has just one wh-phrase in its incomplete
embedded question, the focus here is put on cases of sluicing with more than one remnant,such as the following (Takahashi (1994) and Chiu (2007), among others):(7)

Dareka-ga
dareka-ni
atta sooda.
someone-NON someone-DAT met I.heard
dare-gadare-nika soozoodekinai.
who-NOM who-DAT Q cannot.imagine

Dakedo boku-wa
but
I-TOP

‘Lit. I heard someone met someone. But I cannot imagine who who.’(8)

Mourensomeoneda-leLisi, danhit-ASP Lisi but

wo bu zhidao shi shei zainali.
I
not know FOC who where‘Lit. Someone hit Lisi, but I don’t know who where.’
The example in (7) is from Japanese. Takahashi (1994) examines cases like that, calling thephenomenon multiple sluicing, which is intended to stand for sluicing with multiple remnants.
(8) is a case of multiple sluicing in Chinese, which is closely studied by Chiu (2007).
The purpose of this article is to point out hitherto untouched facts about multiple sluicing
in Chinese and Japanese, considering implications they have for comparative research on the
two languages. The following discussion is two-fold: the first part is about the number ofremnants in multiple sluicing, and the second part deals with cases of multiple sluicing with

-224- 224 -Two Notes on Multiple Sluicing in Chinese and Japanese (D. Takahashi and S. Lin)

what we call heterogeneous remnants, which have a combination of a wh-phrase and a nonwh-phrase as remnants.
2.

The Number of Remnants

While the example of multiple sluicing in (7) has two remnants, Takahashi (1994)
observes that there can be more remnants in a case of multiple sluicing in Japanese. Consider
the following examples:(9)

Dareka-ga
kaikosareta sooda. Dakedo boku-wa dare-ga
someone-NOM was.fired
I.heard but
I-TOP
who-NOM
itu
donna riyuu-de
ka soozoodekinai.
when what reason-for Q cannot.imagine‘Lit. I heard someone was fired. But I cannot imagine who when for what reason.’(10)

Dareka-ga
nanika-okakusita rasii.
Boku-wa dare-ga
someone-NOM something-ACC hid
likely I-TOP
who-NOM
nani-odoko-ni donna huu-ni
ka soozoodekinai.
what-ACC where-at what manner-in Q cannot.imagine‘Lit. It seems someone hid something. I cannot imagine who what where in what way.’

The second sentences in (9) and (10) have three and four remnants, respectively. Both are
perfectly acceptable.
Takahashi (1994) uses this fact to contrast Japanese with English, which appears to
disallow multiple sluicing. Comparable examples in English such as the following are
degraded:(11) a.
Someone broke {something/someone’s iPod}.
b. * I don’t remember who {what/whose iPod}.
(12) a.
Someone hit Mary.
b. * I cannot imagine who when for what reason.
(13) a.
John hid something somewhere in his room.
b. * Guess what where in what way for what purpose.
The examples in (11a), (12a), and (13a) serve to antecede the examples in (11b), (12b), and(13b), respectively, all of which contain sluiced embedded questions. (11b), (12b), and (13b)have two, three, and four wh-phrase remnants, respectively, and all of them are fairly
degraded.2
2

However, there are some good cases of multiple sluicing in English. Building on an observation
made by Bolinger (1978), Nishigauchi (1998) points out the following example:-225- 225 -

2008

2012









Assuming that sluicing in English and its Japanese counterpart both involve whmovement to the specifier position of CP (henceforth, Spec-CP) followed by TP-deletion(Ross (1969)), Takahashi (1994) attributes the difference between the two languages noted
just above to the absence or presence of a movement operation responsible for formation ofcomplex wh-phrases. To illustrate, let us consider the following schematic derivation of amultiply sluiced CP with three remnants in Japanese:[CP [TP … WH1 … WH2 … WH3 …] C](14) a.
b.

[CP [TP … WH1 … [WH2 WH3 WH2] … t3 …] C]
___________|c.

[CP [TP … [WH1 [WH2 WH3 WH2] WH1] … t2 … t3 …] C]
______________|d.

[CP [WH1 [WH2 WH3 WH2 ] WH1] [C’ [TP … t1 … t2 … t3 …] C]]
____________________|e.

[CP [WH1 [WH2 WH3 WH2 ] WH1] [C’ [TP … t1 … t2 … t3 …] C]]

Underlyingly the three wh-phrases occur inside TP as shown in (14a). In the next step
indicated in (14b), the lowest wh-phrase adjoins to the intermediate wh-phrase by what
Takano (2002) calls oblique movement. Then, as shown in (14c), the complex adjoins to thehighest wh-phrase again by oblique movement. This newly created complex then undergoes
wh-movement to the Spec-CP ((14d)), followed by TP-deletion ((14e)). The hypothesis thatJapanese permits a wh-phrase to adjoin to another phrase c-commanding it is proposed by
Saito (1994) and elaborated by Sohn (1994) (for supportive arguments, readers are referred tothose references). Takahashi (1994) claims that this movement, or oblique movement, iscrucially involved in derivation of multiply sluiced clauses. In so doing, Takahashi (1994)
hypothesizes that it is an instance of scrambling, an optional adjunction operation responsible
for the free word order phenomenon in languages like Japanese (Saito (1985, 1992)). Since
English lacks scrambling (that is, English is not a free word order language), it follows that
(i)

a.
b.

?

I know that in each instance one of the girls got something from one of the boys.
But they didn’t tell me which from which.

Anteceded by (ia), (ib) contains an incomplete embedded question, which consists of two wh-phrases.
Lasnik (2008) suggests that the sluiced clause in (ib) is derived in such a way that while the first whphrase undergoes normal wh-movement to the specifier position of CP, the second wh-phrase isdislocated out of TP by rightward movement (or extraposition), as shown below:(ii)

they didn’t tell me [CP which1 [C’ C [TP [TP t1 got something t2 ] [from which]2 ]]]Here the embedded TP is elided after the two wh-phrases evacuate TP as indicated. Lasnik (2008)
observes that cases like (ib) are allowed only when their second remnants are eligible for extraposition
independently. Being aware of the existence of cases like (ib), we assume, as stated in the text, that
English disallows multiple sluicing in general, on the ground that it does not tolerate sluicing withmore than two remnants.

-226- 226 -Two Notes on Multiple Sluicing in Chinese and Japanese (D. Takahashi and S. Lin)the language disallows multiple sluicing.
Several authors argue that Takahashi’s (1994) analysis of Japanese sluicing in terms of
wh-movement followed by TP-deletion is afflicted with some problems. Notably it has
difficulty accommodating the optional appearance of the copula verb in sluiced clauses. Thus,
the second sentence in (3) can be expressed alternatively as follows:(15)

Dakedo boku-wa dare-ni
da ka
But
I-TOP who-DAT be Q

soozoodekinai.
cannot.imagine‘But I cannot imagine who.’
Here the remnant wh-phrase is followed by the copula da ‘be’ and it is unexpected under
Takahashi’s (1994) analysis because the alleged source of (15) resists the occurrence of the
copula. Compare the following examples with (5):dare-niatta da ka] soozoodekinai.
(16) a. * Boku-wa [Ken-ga
I-TOP[Ken-NOM who-DAT met be Q cannot.imagine
dare-nida atta ka] soozoodekinai.
b. * Boku-wa [Ken-ga
I-TOP[Ken-NOM who-DAT be met Q cannot.imagine
In (16), the copula is placed either after or in front of the verb in the embedded clause: neither(16a) nor (16b) is possible. The fact that the copula optionally occurs in sluiced clauses inJapanese leads researchers like Kuwabara (1996), Nishiyama, Whitman, and Yi (1996), andSaito (2004) to propose an alternative analysis according to which sluiced sentences arederived from the corresponding cleft constructions in Japanese. The cleft analysis postulates
that the source of the sluiced sentences in (3) and (15) has the following form:(17)

Boku-wa [[Ken-ga
atta no]-ga
dare-nida ka]
I-TOP[[Ken-NOM met that-NOM who-DAT be Q
soozoodekinai.
cannot.imagine‘I cannot imagine who it was that Ken met.’

The embedded clause here is a cleft construction (see Hoji (1989) for general discussions
about the cleft construction in Japanese): it has a clausal subject expressing thepresupposition, which is followed by the focused wh-phrase, which in turn is followed by the
copula. It is independently assumed that Japanese allows ellipsis of arguments such as
subjects and objects (Oku (1998), Saito (2007), Takahashi (2008), and so on). If theembedded clausal subject is elided in (17), Saito (2004) argues, it yields (15). Also, for someunclear reason, the copula can optionally be omitted in embedded clauses in Japanese. Thus,
besides (17), we may have the following form:-227- 227 -

2008

(18)

2012









Boku-wa [[Ken-ga
atta no]-ga
dare-ni__ ka] soozoodekinai.
I-TOP[[Ken-NOM met that-NOM who-DAT
Q cannot.imagine

Elision of the embedded subject in (18) gives rise to the “sluiced” sentence in (3). Since thecleft analysis can accommodate the optional appearance of the copula in Japanese sluicing
and dispense with the assumption that Japanese, a wh-in-situ language, has overt whmovement as well as TP-deletion, it has gained popularity among experts on the topic.
Given that the cleft analysis has become standard, a question arises as to how it accounts
for multiple sluicing. In fact, Kuwabara (1996) argues that it can accommodate the occurrenceof multiple remnants fairly easily. He observes that the Japanese cleft construction allows
multiple foci, as shown below:(19) a.

Boku-waI-TOP(da) ka](be Q[[kaikosareta no]-wa
dare-gaitu
donna riyuu-de[[was.fired
that-TOP who-NOM when what reason-forsoozoodekinai.
cannot.imagine‘Lit. I cannot imagine who when for what reason it was that was fired.’b.

Boku-wa [[kakusita no]-wa
dare-ganani-odoko-niI-TOP[[hid
that-TOP who-NOM what-ACC where-at
huu-ni(da) ka] soozoodekinai.
manner-in (be Q cannot.imagine

donna
what

‘Lit. I cannot imagine who what where in what way it was that hid.’
These examples should be compared with (9) and (10). If the embedded clausal subjects (theitalicized parts) are elided and the copula is optionally omitted, (19a–b) result in (9) and (10),respectively.
In fact, Takano (2002) argues that oblique movement is responsible for multiple foci. For
the purpose of illustration, let us assume Hiraiwa and Ishihara’s (2002) analysis of the cleft
construction in Japanese in terms of remnant movement.3 For example, the cleft sentence in(20) is derived as in (21).
(20)[Ken-ga
atta no]-wa
Yumi-nida.
[Ken-NOM met that-TOP Yumi-DAT be‘It was Yumi that Ken met.’

3

Actually, Takano (2002) adopts a slightly different analysis of the cleft construction, but the choice
between the analysis in the text and Takano’s does not affect our main concern here. Also, though
Hiraiwa and Ishihara (2002) assume that the landing site of the presuppositional CP is the specifier
position of Topic Phrase, we assume mainly for expository purposes that it is the specifier position of
TP (see (21c)).

-228- 228 -Two Notes on Multiple Sluicing in Chinese and Japanese (D. Takahashi and S. Lin)(21) a.

[CP [TP Ken-ga Yumi-ni atta] no] dab.

[FocP Yumi-ni1 [CP t1 [TP Ken-ga t1 atta] no] da]________| ___________|c.

[TP [CP t1 [TP Ken-ga t1 atta] no]-wa [FOCP Yumi-ni1 tCP da]]__________________________|

Underlyingly, the focused phrase Yumi-ni ‘Yumi-DAT’ occurs in the object position of theassociated verb as in (21a), where the CP headed by no ‘that’ is the complement of the copulada, which is taken to be a focus head. In the next step depicted in (21b), the focused element
undergoes movement to the specifier position of Focus Phrase (or just the Spec-FocP) via theSpec-CP. At the final stage in (21c), the CP is moved to the Spec-TP. Examples with multiple
foci are then derived in the following fashion (X and Y are supposed to be focused elements):(22) a.

[CP [TP … X … Y …] no] dab.

[CP [TP … [X Y X] … tY …] no] da_______|c.

[FocP [X Y X] [CP tX [TP … tX … tY …] no] da]_______| ________|d.

[TP [CP tX [TP … tX … tY …] no]-wa [FocP [X Y X] tCP da]]_____________________________|In the underlying representation in (22a), two focused elements, X and Y, occur in the CP
headed by no. In the second step in (22b), the lower focused phrase Y adjoins to the higher
phrase X by oblique movement, forming a complex focused phrase. In the third step in (22c),
the complex undergoes movement to the Spec-FocP successive-cyclically. And finally in(22d), the remnant CP moves to the Spec-TP. Suppose that X and Y are wh-phrases and that
the CP is elided in (22d), and we have a multiply sluiced clause.
To recapitulate the point above, whether Japanese sluicing is to be analyzed in terms of
wh-movement plus TP-deletion or in terms of the cleft construction, the possibility ofmultiple sluicing depends on the availability of oblique movement, which is taken to be an
instance of scrambling by Takahashi (1994). Bearing this in mind, let us turn our attention to
Chinese. Chiu (2007) observes that it allows multiple sluicing, though unfortunately he only
considers examples with two remnants. Although we suppose that he intends to mean that
Chinese allows sluicing with two or more wh-phrases, we take on the task of examining
whether it actually allows more than two remnants. The following are relevant examples:(23) a.

Mouren da-leLisi,someone hit-ASP Lisi
‘Someone hit Lisi,’-229- 229 -

2008

b.

dan
but

2012









wo bu zhidao shi shei shenmeshihou zainali.
I
not know FOC who when
where

‘Lit. but I don’t know who when where.’c.

dan wo bu zhidao shi shei shenmeshihou zainali yong shenme
but I
not know FOC who when
where inwhat
fangshi.
way‘Lit. but I don’t know who when where in what way.’(24) a.

ZhangsanZhangsanmai-lemoge-dongxi,
buy-ASP something‘Zhangsan bought something,’
b.

dan
but

wo bu zhidao shi shenme zainali yinwei shenme yuanyin.
I
not know FOC what
where forwhat
reason‘Lit. but I don’t know what where for what reason.’c.

dan wo bu zhidao shi shenme shenmeshihou zainali yinwei
but I
not know FOC what
when
where forshenme yuanyin.
whatreason‘Lit. but I don’t know what when where for what reason.’

The sentence in (23a) serves as the antecedent for (23b–c). While (23b) has three wh-phrases
as remnants, (24c) has four. Both are quite acceptable. In a similar fashion, anteceded by(24a), (24b–c) contain sluiced embedded clauses with three and four remnants, respectively,
and both are acceptable. These indicate that multiple sluicing with more than two remnants is
indeed possible in Chinese, just as in Japanese. What implications does it have for the general
theory of multiple sluicing?
Considering data in Japanese, Takahashi (1994) argues that the availability ofscrambling should be responsible for the possibility of multiple sluicing. The observation
above about Chinese plainly indicates that Takahashi’s (1994) hypothesis does not hold forthe language, because it is not a free word order language and hence lacks scrambling. The
absence of scrambling in Chinese can be shown by a cursory look at the following data:(25) a.

Zhangsan song Lisi yi-ben shu.
Zhangsan send Lisi one-CL book
‘Zhangsan sent Lisi a book.’-230- 230 -Two Notes on Multiple Sluicing in Chinese and Japanese (D. Takahashi and S. Lin)b. * Zhangsan song yi-ben shu Lisi.
Zhangsan send one-CL book Lisic. * Zhangsan Lisi yi-ben shu song.
Zhangsan Lisi one-CL book send
Zhangsand. * Lisi yi-ben shu
Lisi one-CL book Zhangsan

song.
send

The example in (25a) is a double object construction. We cannot permute the order of the two
objects ((25b)), nor can we place the two objects between the subject and the verb ((25c)) orin front of the subject ((25d)).
How can we proceed with the fact that multiple sluicing is available both in Japanese andin Chinese? One possibility is to stick to the idea that oblique movement is responsible for theformation of a cluster of wh-phrase remnants in both languages while giving up Takahashi’s(1994) assumption that it is an instance of scrambling. Attributing it to Kim (1998), Takano(2002) considers the hypothesis that oblique movement is focus-related: simply put, oblique
movement involves movement of one focused phrase to another (probably by adjunction).
Given that focus-related movement is available in both languages, it allows both of them tohave oblique movement.4 A potential problem with this approach is that we may lose
explanation for the absence of oblique movement in English (if it were present, English would
allow multiple sluicing). Obviously there are phenomena involving focus in English (forinstance, the cleft construction). If oblique movement were focus-related, we would expect it
to be available in English as well, yielding multiple sluicing.
Another possibility to pursue is to treat multiple sluicing in Chinese and Japanese
4

As noted above in the text, Japanese has the cleft construction, which is clearly focus-related andexhibits properties of movement (Hoji (1989)). Chinese also possesses the cleft construction, as
exemplified below:

(i)

a.

Zhangsan da-leLisi.
Zhangsan hit-ASP Lisi
‘Zhangsan hit Lisi.’b.

Shi Zhangsan
FOC Zhangsan

da-le
Lisi.
hit-ASP Lisi

‘It was Zhangsan that hit Lisi.’c.

?

Shi Lisi
FOC Lisi

ZhangsanZhangsanda-le.
hit-ASP‘It was Lisi that Zhangsan hit.’
The cleft sentences in (ib–c) are constructed on the basis of the simple sentence in (ia): the subject andthe object are focused in (ib–c), respectively, as indicated by the attachment of the focus marker shi.

-231- 231 -

2008

2012







differently: for example, to maintain the analysis of Japanese multiple sluicing in terms of
oblique movement as an instance of scrambling while providing a different analysis for the
Chinese counterpart. Though this may be workable, it could not offer a unified explanation
for the two cases of multiple sluicing, which do exhibit some similarities, such as theclausemate effect noted by Chiu (2007) and Takahashi (1994).
Kuwabara (1996) provides an alternative analysis for multiple sluicing in Japanese that
does not involve oblique movement (see also Koizumi (2000)). Head movement and remnant
movement are crucial ingredients of his analysis. Let us illustrate the gist of his analysis withthe following schematic derivation of a multiply sluiced clause with a subject, an adjunct, andan object remnant:(26) a.

[CP [TP WHSUB [VP WHADJ WHOB V] T] no] dab.

[CP [TP WHSUB [VP WHADJ WHOB tV] tT] [C [T V T] no]] da|___ |_______c.

[FocP [TP WHSUB [VP WHADJ WHOB tV] tT] [CP tTP [C [T V T] no]] da]______________________|d.

[TP [CP tTP [C [T V T] no]]-wa [FocP[TP WHSUB [VP WHADJ WHOB tV] tT] tCP da]]_____________________________________________|e.

[CP [TP [CP tTP [C [T V T] no]]-wa [FocP[TP WHSUB [VP WHADJ WHOB tV] tT] tCP da]]ka]

Kuwabara (1996) assumes that Japanese sluicing is derived from the cleft construction, andthus we illustrate his analysis with Hiraiwa and Ishihara’s (2002) theory (see (20) and (21)above). In the underlying representation in (26a), three wh-phrases appear in the CP headed
by no ‘that,’ which is selected by da ‘be.’ In the next step in (26b), the verb inside the CP
undergoes head movement to C via T. In (26c), focus movement applies to the remnant TP,
locating it in the SPEC-FocP. Note that the affected TP contains the three wh-phrases, each ofwhich does not undergo movement by itself: they are dislocated as a result of movement of
the TP containing them. The subsequent step in (26d) involves remnant movement of the CP
headed by no to the Spec-TP. In (26e), the TP is merged with the interrogativecomplementizer; if ellipsis applies to the presuppositional CP, as indicated by the
strikethrough, the representation of multiple sluicing is obtained.
Since this analysis does not assume oblique movement, it should in principle beapplicable to Chinese. A potential obstacle may be that in order to deal with a cluster ofremnants including a subject wh-phrase, which is arguably in the Spec-TP, TP must be
subject to remnant movement as shown in (26c), which necessitates verb movement to C as
indicated in (26b). This is unlikely, however, since verbs usually do not occur above subjects
in Chinese. Consider the following examples:-232- 232 -Two Notes on Multiple Sluicing in Chinese and Japanese (D. Takahashi and S. Lin)(27) a.

ZhangsanZhangsan

da-le
Lisi.
hit-ASP Lisi

‘Zhangsan hit Lisi.’
Zhangsanb. * Da-lehit-ASP Zhangsan

Lisi.
Lisi

Verbs usually appear in the position following subjects, as in (27a). If V-to-C movement wereavailable, cases like (27b) would be obtained. Since the configuration depicted in (27b) is
generally impossible, it is unlikely that Chinese allows verb movement to C. Therefore, it isdifficult to apply Kuwabara’s (1996) idea to multiple sluicing in Chinese (see also Takano(2002) for arguments against Kuwabara’s (1996) analysis).
These considerations show that it is not an easy task to account for multiple sluicing in
Chinese and Japanese in a uniform fashion. Although we have to leave it to future research topropose our own analysis, we end this section by pointing out that the so-called pseudo-cleft
construction in Chinese exhibits patterns similar to, and hence can be considered as a viable
source of, multiple sluicing in the language (see also Chiu, Fujii, and Sugawa (2008) and thereferences therein for related discussions). First, the pseudo-cleft construction in Chinese isillustrated below, where RM stands for the relativization marker:(28) a.

ZhangsanZhangsan

da-le
Lisi.
hit-ASP Lisi

‘Zhangsan hit Lisi.’b.

[[Zhangsan da-le]de] shi Lisi.
[[Zhangsan hit-ASP RM be Lisi
‘Lit. That Zhangsan hit was Lisi.’c.

[[Da-leLisi] de] shi Zhangsan.
[[hit-ASP Lisi RM be Zhangsan‘Lit. That hit Lisi was Zhangsan.’

Building on the simple sentence in (28a), we may form pseudo-cleft sentences as in (28b–c),
where the subjects are free relative clauses followed by the copula and the pivots (or foci).
Note that if the relative clause subjects are elided in (28b–c), sluicing-like structures are
obtained. The pseudo-cleft construction is dismissed, however, as a general source of sluiced
clauses in Chinese in the literature because it is difficult to derive sluiced clauses with non-NP
remnants from theis pseudo-cleft counterparts. Categories other than NP may appear as
remnants in sluicing, but crucially they cannot be pivots in pseudo-clefts (see the references
above).

-233- 233 -2008(29) a.

2012

ZhangsanZhangsan



da-le
Lisi,
hit-ASP Lisi

danbut

wo bu zhidao shiI
not know FOC

zainali.
where‘Zhangsan hit Lisi, but I don’t know where.’b. * Zhangsan
Zhangsanda-leLisi deshi {zai Xiantai. / zainali?}
hit-ASP Lisi RM be {in Sendai where‘Lit. That Zhangsan hit Lisi was in Sendai./where?’
What is noteworthy, however, is that non-NP pivots are in fact permissible if they arepreceded by NP pivots, as shown below:(30) a.

Da-leLisi deshi Zhangsan
hit-ASP Lisi RM be Zhangsan

zai Xiantai.
in Sendai‘Lit. That hit Lisi was Zhangsan in Sendai.’
b.

Da-le
Lisi deshi shei shenmeshihou zainali yinwei shenme
hit-ASP Lisi RM be who when
where forwhat
yuanyin?
reason‘Lit. That hit Lisi was who when where for what reason?’

In particular, (30b) contains four wh-phrases as pivots. Further, Chiu (2007) notes thatmultiple sluicing with two NP remnants is impossible in Chinese, as shown in (31a).
Likewise, pseudo-clefts with two NP pivots are degraded, as in (31b–c).
mogedongxi,(31) a. * Mouren mai-lesomeone buy-ASP something
shenme.
what

dan
but

wo bu zhidao shi sheiI
not know FOC who‘Lit. Someone bought something, but I don’t know who what.’deshi shei shenme?
b. * Mai-lebuy-ASP RM be who what
‘Lit. That bought was who what?’deshi Zhangsanc. * Da-lehit-ASP RM be Zhangsan

Lisi.
Lisi

‘Lit. That hit was Zhangsan Lisi.’As far as multiple sluicing in Chinese is concerned, therefore, the pseudo-cleft construction
seems to be a strong candidate for the source.

-234- 234 -Two Notes on Multiple Sluicing in Chinese and Japanese (D. Takahashi and S. Lin)

3.

Heterogeneous Remnants

The topic we will consider in this section pertains to multiple sluicing with different
kinds of remnants in Chinese and Japanese. We will make some novel observations, pointing
out implications they have on the analyses of sluicing in those languages.
Let us start with some preliminary observations. First of all, a number of authors
including Chiu, Fujii, and Sugawa (2008), Kuwabara (1996), and so on observe that non-whphrases can serve as remnants in Japanese sluicing. The following is a typical example:(32) a.

Kyoto-ni kuru to] itta.
Ken-wa [CP Gaga-ga
Ken-TOP
Gaga-NOM Kyoto-to come that said
‘Ken said that Gaga will come to Kyoto.’b.

Takuya-wa [CP Sendai-ni to] itta.
Takuya-TOP
Sendai-to that said
‘Lit. Takuya said that to Sendai.’

Anteceded by (32a), (32b) contains a truncated embedded clause, which consists of the nonwh-remnant Sendai-ni ‘to Sendai’ and the complementizer to ‘that.’ Though we do not go into
details, the possibility of cases like this in Japanese vis-à-vis their absence in English leads
the authors mentioned above to argue that Japanese sluicing should be treated differently fromits English counterpart.
Chiu, Fujii, and Sugawa (2008) point out a similar phenomenon in Chinese. The
example below is cited from the article:(33) a.

Zhang laoshi renwei Lisi zai tushuguan duyuyanxue,
Zhang teacher thinks Lisi at librarystudy linguistics‘Prof. Zhang thinks that Lisi is studying linguistics at the library,’

b.

dan
but

Lin
Lin

laoshi renwei shi zai kafeiting
teacher think FOC at coffee.shop‘Lit. but Prof. Lin thinks that at the coffee shop.’
The sentence in (33a) serves as the antecedent for (33b), where the embedded clause only
contains the non-wh-phrase PP accompanied by the focus marker.
Further, Kuwabara (1996) observes that Japanese allows multiple sluicing with a
combination of a wh-phrase remnant and a non-wh-phrase remnant. Consider the following
example:-235- 235 -2008(34) a.

2012









Ken-wa [dono otokonoko-ga kyoositu-de benkyoosita ka] sitteiru.
Ken-TOP [which boy-NOM
classroom-at studied
Q know‘Ken knows which boy studied at the classroom.’b.

Yumi-wa [dono onnanoko-ga tosyokan-de ka] sitteiru.
Yumi-TOP [which girl-NOM
library-at
Q know‘Lit. Yumi knows which girl at the library.’

Taking (34) as its antecedent, (34b) means that Yumi knows which girl studied at the library.
Notice that the embedded clause in (34b) is shrunk, with the wh-phrase dono onnanoko-ga‘which girl-NOM’ and the non-wh PP tosyokan-de ‘at the library’ left as remnants. This fact
may not be so surprising given that Japanese permits multiple sluicing and allows not only
wh-phrases but also non-wh-phrases as remnants of single sluicing.
One may then expect that Chinese should allow multiple sluicing with heterogeneous
remnants too, because just like Japanese, it permits single sluicing with either wh-phrase or
non-wh-phrase remnants and allows multiple sluicing. This is not borne out, however, as thefollowing examples are unacceptable:(35) a.

Zhangsan xiang zhidao [nage nanhai zai Shanghai kanjian AKB48].
Zhangsan want know [which boy
in Shanghai see
AKB48‘Zhangsan wants to know which boy saw AKB48 in Shanghai.’b. * Lisi xiang zhidao [shi nage nvhai zai Xiantai].
Lisi want know [FOC which girlin Sendai‘Lit. Lisi wants to know which girl in Sendai.’(36) a.

Zhangsan zhidao [nage nanhai song yiben shu gei Xiaoli].
Zhangsan know [which boy
send onebook to Xiaoli‘Zhangsan knows which boy sent a book to Xiaoli.’b. * Lisi zhidao [shi nage nvhai gei Xiaohong].
Lisi know [FOC which girlto Xiaohong‘Lit. Lisi knows which girl to Xiaohong.’
Anteceded by (35a) and (36a), (35b) and (36b), respectively, have truncated embedded
clauses with a combination of a wh-phrase remnant and a non-wh remnant. (35b) is intended
to mean that Lisi wants to know which girl saw AKB48 in Sendai; (36b) should mean that
Lisi knows which girl sent a book to Xiaohong. As indicated, both of them are impossible.
This is one respect in which Chinese and Japanese behave differently.
We point out that here, too, the pseudo-cleft construction is a viable source for multiply-236- 236 -Two Notes on Multiple Sluicing in Chinese and Japanese (D. Takahashi and S. Lin)sluiced clauses in Chinese, because the pseudo-cleft counterparts of (35b) and (36b) exhibit
the same pattern.5(37) a. * [Kanjian AKB48 de] shi nage nvhai zai Xiantai?
[see
AKB48 RM be which girlin Sendai‘Lit. That saw AKB48 was which girl in Sendai?’b. * [Song yiben shu] shi nage nvhai gei Xiaohong?
[send onebook be which girlto Xiaohong‘Lit. That sent a book was which girl to Xiaohong?’
These pseudo-cleft sentences contain multiple pivots: in each case, the first pivot is a whphrase and the second is a non-wh-phrase. The examples are fairly degraded, in contrast with
(30a–b), which have homogeneous pivots. For those who assume that multiple sluicing isderived from the pseudo-cleft construction in Chinese, the fact in (35) and (36) is relatively
easy to deal with, because their alleged sources are impossible. Of course, though, providing
an ultimate answer to the question why cases like (37a–b) are disallowed awaits further
careful investigation.
Finally, we note that the alleged source of (34b) under the cleft analysis of Japanesesluicing does not sound very good.6 The cleft counterpart of (34b) is given below with ourjudgment:
dono onnanoko-ga tosyokan-de desu ka?
(38) ?*[Benkyoosita no]-wa
studies
that-TOP which girl-NOM
library-atbeQ‘Lit. Which girl at the library was it that studied?’
If this observation is correct, it poses a problem to the advocates of the cleft analysis: why is(34b), a case of multiple sluicing with heterogeneous remnants, possible although its
purported source, a cleft sentence with heterogeneous pivots, is impossible? Although this,
too, remains to be solved, it surely gives us a new perspective on the issue concerning theproper treatment of Japanese sluicing.
5

As noted in section 2, the pseudo-cleft construction tolerates multiple pivots if they are of the samekind. Thus, (37a) becomes acceptable if the second pivot is replaced with a wh-phrase as below:(i)[Kanjian AKB48 de] shi[see
AKB48 RM benage nvhai
which girlzainali?
where‘Lit. That saw AKB48 was which girl where?’
6

Attributing it to one of the reviewers of his article, Takano (2002) observes that cases similar to (38)are not very bad. We disagree with him (or that reviewer) about the status of the relevant examples,
which sound fairly degraded to us. The point here is that there are speakers that accept sluicing withheterogeneous remnants but do not allow cleft sentences with heterogeneous pivots.

-237- 237 -

2008

4.

2012







Conclusion

To summarize, we have pointed out two major facts about multiple sluicing in Chinese,considering their implications on comparative research on sluicing in Chinese and Japanese.
One has to do with the observation that Chinese sluicing allows more than two remnants justlike its Japanese counterpart. While the fact itself demands explanation, it also helps narrow
down the competing analyses proposed for Japanese multiple sluicing: it at least suggests thatany analysis implicating scrambling to deal with multiple remnants should be subjected toreconsideration. The other major point pertains to the difference between the two languages interms of multiple sluicing with heterogeneous remnants: Whereas it is possible in Japanese, it
is not in Chinese. Considering that they are similar in a number of other respects related tosluicing, the existence of such a difference is intriguing in itself. At the same time, however, it
has important consequences on how sluicing in those languages should be analyzed: thatmultiple sluicing with heterogeneous remnants patterns with its pseudo-cleft counterpart in
Chinese strongly suggests the possibility that the latter acts as the source of the former. As forsluicing with heterogeneous remnants in Japanese, on the other hand, its alleged source
according to the cleft analysis turns out to be impermissible, indicating that it derives fromsome other source. Although we have had to leave a number of important questions
unresolved, we believe that our observations here will fuel further comparative research on
the two languages in terms of sluicing, a much studied but still mysterious phenomenon.

References
Bolinger, D. (1978) “Asking More Than One Thing at a Time.” In H. Hiz ed., Questions, Reidel,
Dordrecht, 107–150.
Chiu, L. L. (2007) “A Focus-Movement Account on Chinese Multiple Sluicing,” Nanzan Linguistics:
Special Issue 1.1, 23–31.
Chiu, L. L., T. Fujii and S. Sugawa (2008) “On Certain Commonalities between Sluicing-LikeConstructions in Mandarin Chinese and Japanese,” Nanzan Linguistics Special Issue 3.2, 35–
50.
Hiraiwa, K. and S. Ishihara (2002) “Missing Links: Cleft, Sluicing and ‘No Da’ Construction in
Japanese.” In T. Ionin et al., eds., Proceedings of the 2nd HUMIT Student Conference inLanguage Research (HUMIT 2001), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 43, 35–54.
Hoji, H. (1989) “Theories of Anaphora and Aspects of Japanese Syntax,” ms., University of South
California.
Inoue, K. (1976) Henkei Bunpoo to Nihongo ‘Transformational Grammar and Japanese’, Taisyukan,
Tokyo.
Kim, J.-S. (1998) “A Minimalist Theory of S-Structure Saving Effects in Japanese and Korean,”Proceedings of the Fourteenth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics ’97, CLC
Publications, Cornell University, 82–93.
Koizumi, M. (2000) “String Vacuous Overt Verb Raising,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9, 227–
285.
Kuwabara, K. (1996) “Multiple Wh-Phrases in Elliptical Clauses and Some Aspects of Clefts with
Multiple Foci.” In M. Koizumi et al., eds., Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics(FAJL2), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 29, 97–116.

-238- 238 -Two Notes on Multiple Sluicing in Chinese and Japanese (D. Takahashi and S. Lin)

Lasnik, H. (2008) “Repair by Ellipsis Revisited,” Handout for lectures at Nanzan University.
Nishigauchi, T. (1998) “‘Multiple Sluicing’ in Japanese and the Functional Nature of Wh-phrases,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7, 121–152.
Nishiyama, K., J. Whitman and E.-Y. Yi (1996) “Syntactic Movement of Overt Wh-Phrases inJapanese and Korean,” Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5, 337–351.
Oku, S. (1998) A Theory of Selection and Reconstruction in the Minimalist Perspective, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Ross J. R. (1969) “Guess Who?” In R. Binnick et al., eds, Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of
the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago Linguistic Society, 252–286.
Saito, M. (1985) Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications, Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Saito, M. (1992) “Long Distance Scrambling in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1, 69–
118.
Saito, M. (1994) “Additional-Wh Effects and the Adjunction Site Theory,” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 3, 195–240.
Saito, M. (2004) “Ellipsis and Pronominal Reference in Japanese Clefts,” Nanzan Linguistics 1, 21–
50.
Saito, M. (2007) “Notes on East Asian Argument Ellipsis,” Language Research 43, 203–227.
Sohn, K.-W. (1994) “Adjunction to Argument, Free Ride and a Minimalist Program.” In M. Koizumi
and H. Ura, eds., Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics: Proceedings of FAJL 1, MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 24, 315–334.
Takahashi, D. (1994) “Sluicing in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3, 265–300.
Takahashi, D. (2008) “Noun Phrase Ellipsis.” In S. Miyagawa and M. Saito eds., The Oxford
Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, Oxford University Press, New York, 394–422.
Takano, Y. (2002) “Surprising Constituents,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11, 243–301.
Wang, C. A. (2002) On Sluicing in Mandarin Chinese, MA Thesis, National Tsing Hua University,
Taiwan.
Wei, T.-C. (2004) Predication and Sluicing in Mandarin Chinese, Ph.D. dissertation, National
Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.

-239- 239 -PSEUDO-RIGHT DISLOCATION
AND THE BARE-TOPIC CONSTRUCTION IN JAPANESE *Kensuke Takita
JSPS/Tohoku University

1.

Introduction

Although Japanese is a strict head-final SOV language, various kinds of constituents may
appear in the post-verbal position. Some concrete examples of this construction, called rightdislocation, are given in (1).1(1)

a.

Taroo-ga katta-yo, ano hon-oTaroo-Nombought-Prt that book-Acc‘Lit. Taroo bought , that book’b.

Taroo-ga
 inu-ohirotta-yo,
ano kooen-deTaroo-Nom
dog-Acc picked.up-Prt that park-in‘Lit. Taroo picked up a dog , in that parkc.

Taroo-ga
 okane-onusunda-yo, ano saihu-kara
Taroo-Nommoney-Acc stole-Prt
that wallet-from‘Lit. Taroo stole money , from that wallet’

Dislocated phrases can be Case-marked NPs as in (1a) or PPs as in (1b–c).

* Earlier versions of this paper were presented at GLOW in Asia Workshop for Young Scholars heldat Mie University in September 2011 and the 38th Linguistics Colloquium held at Nanzan University
in October 2011. I thank Duk-Ho An, Masatake Arimoto, Tomo Fujii, Hideki Kishimoto, Yoichi
Miyamoto, Keiko Murasugi, Chizuru Nakao, Hiroki Narita, Yosuke Sato, Shigeki Taguchi, Daiko
Takahashi, Yuji Takano, W.-T. Dylan Tsai, H.-C. Joyce Tsai, Julio Villa-García, and Hideaki
Yamashita for their valuable comments and discussions. I also thank Mamoru Saito for his helpfulcomments at various points of this work. All errors are of course mine. Part of this work is supported
by Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Research Fellow (#22-7194).
1

Right dislocated constituents are given in boldface, and the symbol  indicates the gap
corresponding to them. The particle -yo is attached to the verb to make the sentence more colloquial,
as right dislocation is more natural in colloquial speech. Although various constituents including
clausal arguments, adverbials, and prenominal modifiers can appear in the post-verbal position, I
restrict myself to the cases where nominal elements are right dislocated, since pseudo-right dislocation
counterparts (which are introduced below in the text) can be created only in these cases.

-241-

2008

2012









There is a version of right dislocation where dislocated phrases lack their Casemarkers/postpositions, as in (2).2(2)

a.

Taroo-ga  katta-yo, ano hon-Ø
Taroo-Nom bought-Prt that book
‘Lit. Taroo bought , that book’b.

Taroo-ga  inu-o
hirotta-yo,
ano kooen-ØTaroo-Nom dog-Acc picked.up-Prt that park
‘Lit. Taroo picked up a dog , that parkc.

Taroo-ga  okane-onusunda-yo, ano saihu-Ø
Taroo-Nom money-Acc stole-Prt
that wallet‘Lit. Taroo stole money , that wallet’

I call this version of right dislocation pseudo-right dislocation (PRD), as opposed to the“standard” right dislocation (SRD) in (1), where dislocated elements are Case-/postpositionmarked. In the previous literature, PRD has been rarely studied in detail, and if any, it has
been taken for granted that PRD is merely a sub-case of SRD (see, for instance, Endo 1996,
Fukutomi 2007). The only exception I am aware of is Tanaka and Kizu (2006, 2007,
henceforth T&K), who focus on right dislocations with Case-marked and Case-less NPs suchas (1a) and (2a).3
This paper has the following goals: First, building on the data by T&K, I provide a novel
set of observations regarding PRD, comparing it with SRD. Then, I propose an account of theproperties of PRD, claiming that it is derived from the bare-topic construction discussed by
Taguchi (2009) (see also Endo 2007). Second, I illustrate that the bare-topic construction is
subsumed under Hanging Topic constructions found in various Romance and other languages(see, among many others, Cinque 1977, 1983, 1990, Vat 1981, Grohmann 2000a, b, Frey
2004, Benincà and Polleto 2004, Shaer and Frey 2004, Belletti 2008, Krapova and Cinque2008 and the papers in Anagnostopoulou, van Riemsdijk and Zwarts 1997). Bringing thesegoals together, I argue that investigation of the properties of PRD allows us to contribute to a
deeper understanding of the nature of the bare-topic construction, which in turn opens a novel
way of comparing Japanese with other languages in terms of the syntax of topics.
2

All instances of Case-marker/postposition do not appear to be able to be missing equally (see Endo
1996 and Fukutomi 2007). In particular, Case-markers can be missing more easily than postpositions.
Furthermore, the fact that (2c) is degraded compared to (2b) for some speakers indicates that there arecertain differences among postpositions. Hence, the examples presented in the rest of this paper arebasically modeled on (2a-b).

3

I thank Hideaki Yamashita (p.c.) for reminding me the relevance of T&K. To be more precise, theyalso examine the behaviors of Case-marked and Case-less NPs in cleft and relative clauses, and argue
that the three constructions behave in the same way.

-242- 242 -Pseudo-Right Dislocation and the Bare-Topic Construction in Japanese (K. Takita)This paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 I provide a set of data regarding PRD.
Section 3 proposes an account of the properties of PRD, and compares it with some potential
alternative analyses. In Section 4 I illustrate that the bare-topic construction is subsumed
under Hanging Topic constructions, and discuss various implications arising from thisperspective. Section 5 concludes this paper.
2.

Observations

This section provides a set of data concerning PRD, comparing it with SRD. Although it
is shown that there are some similarities between SRD and PRD in Section 2.1, we see thatthey do behave differently in a significant way in Section 2.2.
2.1.

Similarities between SRD and PRD

It has been observed at least since Kuno (1978) and Inoue (1978) that SRD is insensitive
to Ross’ (1967) Right-Roof Constraint, which prohibits rightward movement from crossing aclausal boundary. That is, right dislocated phrases can participate in long-distancedependencies, as shown in (3). The fact that the examples in (3) are still grammatical even if
the Case-makers/postpositions of the dislocated phrases are missing indicates that PRD is also
insensitive to the constraint, on a par with SRD.
(3)a.

Hanako-ga [ Taroo-ga  katta to] itteita-yo, ano hon-{o/Ø}Hanako-Nom Taroo-Nom bought C said-Prt that book-Acc‘Lit. Hanako said [that Taroo bought ], that book’b.

Hanako-ga [ Taroo-ga  inu-o
hirottato] itteita-yo, ano kooen-{de/Ø}Hanako-Nom Taroo-Nom dog-Acc picked.up C said-Prt that park-in‘Lit. Hanako said [that Taroo picked up a dog ], (in) that park’

The second similarity between SRD and PRD is illustrated by the examples in (4). As
shown in (4), if the dislocated phrase appears on the right-periphery of the embedded clause,the sentence becomes ungrammatical no matter whether the complementizer precedes orfollows it. That is, SRD is restricted to the root clause (see Haraguchi 1973, Kuno 1978, Saito
1985, Abe 1999, and Tanaka 2001), and the same holds for PRD.
(4)a. * Hanako-ga [ Taroo-ga  katta (to) ano hon-{o/Ø} (to)] omotteiru-yo
Hanako-Nom Taroo-Nom bought (C that book-Acc (C think-Prt‘Lit. Hanako thinks [that Taroo bought , that book]’-243- 243 -

2008

2012









hirotta(to) ano kooen-{de/Ø} (to)]b. *Hanako-ga [ Taroo-ga  inu-o
Hanako-Nom Taroo-Nom dog-Acc picked.up (C that park-in(Comotteiru-yo
think-Prt‘Lit. Hanako thinks [that Taroo picked up a dog , (in) that park]’
2.2.

Differences between SRD and PRD

Although SRD can participate in long-distance dependencies as shown in (3), it does
exhibit island-sensitivity (see Simon 1989, Endo 1996, Abe 1999, and Tanaka 2001). T&K,
however, observe that island-effects disappear when Case-markers of dislocated phrases are
missing. For instance, the example in (5) indicates that a violation of the Complex NP
Constraint is ameliorated if the dislocated phrase is not accompanied with the accusative
Case-marker -o (based on Tanaka and Kizu 2007:221; judgments are theirs).
* Taroo-ga [NP[TP Hanako-ga
 ageta] hito]-osagasiteita-yo,
ano
Taroo-Nom
Hanako-Nom
gave person-Acc was.looking.for-Prt thatronbun-{*o/?Ø}paper-Acc(5)‘Lit. Taroo was looking for the person who Hanako gave , that paper’
Similar effects are observed for examples like (6a), which involves an adjunct island, and(6b), where the postposition -de ‘in’ is intended to be missing.
(6)a.

[ Taroo-ga  sutetakara] Hanako-ga
totemo okotteiru-yo, ano
Taroo-Nom discarded because Hanako-Nom very
is.angry-Prt thathon-{*o/Ø}book-Acc‘Lit. [Because Taroo discarded ], Hanako is very angry, that book’b.

hirotta] hito]-ositteiru-yo, ano kooen-{*de/Ø}Hanako-ga [[ inu-o
Hanako-Nom
dog-Acc picked.up person-Acc know-Prt that park-in‘Lit. Hanako knows [the person [who picked up a dog ]], (in) that park’Thus, PRD behaves differently from SRD with respect to island-sensitivity.
The second difference has to do with reconstruction effects. Let us first consider theexample in (7), adapted from Tanaka and Kizu (2007:222). T&K observe that the anaphor
zibun ‘self’ within the dislocated element can be bound by either the matrix subject or theembedded subject in SRD, while it can only be bound by the matrix subject if the Casemarker is missing. Put differently, PRD exhibits “half-way” reconstruction (Tanaka and Kizu
2007:224).

-244- 244 -Pseudo-Right Dislocation and the Bare-Topic Construction in Japanese (K. Takita)

Taroo-gai [ Hanako-gaj Ziroo-kara  moratta to] itteita-yo,
Taroo-Nom Hanako-Nom Ziroo-from received C said-Prt{zibun-noi/j ronbun-o/zibun-noi/*?j ronbun-Ø}{self-Gen
paper-Acc self-Gen
paper

(7)

‘Lit. Taroo said [that Hanako received  from Ziroo], self’s paper’
However, there are speakers including me who do not share their judgments: For them,neither of the subjects in (7) can antecede zibun ‘self’ if the Case-marker is absent. That is,
SRD exhibits reconstruction effects, while PRD never does.
This pattern of judgments is confirmed by the examples in (8) and (9). The examples in(8) indicate that anaphors other than zibun ‘self’ within the dislocated phrases can be boundvia reconstruction in SRD but not in PRD. Similarly, (9) shows that variable-binding ispossible in SRD (see Abe 1999), while it is not in PRD.
(8)a.

Taroo-gai [ Hanako-gaj  semeta to] itteita-yo, zibunzisin-{o/*Ø}i/j
Taroo-Nom Hanako-Nom blamed C said-Prt self-Acc‘Lit. Taroo said [that Hanako blamed ], self’b.

utatta-yo, otagai-noi
ie-{de/*Ø}[ Taroo to Hanako]-gai  uta-oTaroo and Hanako-Nom
song-Acc sang-Prt each.other-Gen house-in‘Lit. Taroo and Hanako sang a song , (in) each other’s house’

(9)

a.

 hometa-yo, sonoi hito-no
sakuhin-{o/*Ø}[ Subete-no gaka]-gai
all-Gen painter-Nom praised-Prt that person-Gen work-Acc‘Lit. Every painter praised , his work’b.

utatta-yo, sonoi ko-no
ie-{de/*Ø}[ Subete-no kodomo]-gai  uta-o
all-Gen child-Nom
song-Acc sang-Prt that child-Gen house-in‘Lit. Every child sang a song , (in) his house’

In the rest of this paper, I focus on this type of speaker.
The final difference between SRD and PRD comes from the behaviors of the gap. Tanaka(2001) observes that in SRD, the gap can be overtly filled by an overt pronoun or a fullfledged phrase identical to the dislocated one (indicated by italics) as in (10).
(10) a.

Taroo-ga {sore-o/LGB-o} yonda-yo, LGB-o
Taroo-Nom {it-Acc LGB-Acc read-Prt LGB-Acc‘Lit. Taroo read it/LGB, LGB’

-245- 245 -

2008

b.

2012









Taroo-ga {soko-de/ano kooen-de} inu-o
hirotta-yo,
ano kooen-de
dog-Acc picked.up-Prt that park-in
Taroo-Nom {there.in that park-in‘Lit. Taroo picked up a dog there/in that park, (in) that park’

The examples in (11) indicate that when the Case-marker/postposition is missing, such“doubling” is possible with overt pronouns but quite degraded with identical phrases.
(11) a.

Taroo-ga {sore-o/??LGB-o} yonda-yo, LGB-Ø
Taroo-Nom {it-Acc LGB-Acc read-Prt LGB-Acc‘Lit. Taroo read it/LGB, LGB’b.

hirotta-yo,
ano kooen-ØTaroo-ga {soko-de/??ano kooen-de} inu-oTaroo-Nom {there.in that park-in
dog-Acc picked.up-Prt that park-in‘Lit. Taroo picked up a dog in that park, (in) that park’

That is, PRD resists doubling of identical phrases.
The table in (12) summarizes the observations made so far. In the next section, I propose
an analysis that can capture these observations.
(12) Table 1: Data summary

3.
3.1.

SRD

PRD

Ex.

Long-distance dependency

yes

yes

(3)

Root restriction

yes

yes

(4)

Island-sensitivity

yes

no

(5)/(6)

Reconstruction effects

yes

no

(8)/(9)Doubling of identical phrases

yes

??

(10)/(11)

Proposals and Analysis
Proposals

Before making specific proposals, let us review some of the previous approaches toJapanese right dislocation, as they constitute the basis of the analysis to be proposed. There
are at least two kinds of major approaches, schematically given in (13). Under the approach in(13a), which is called the double preposing approach (see Kurogi 2007, Fukutomi 2007; seealso Abe 1999 for a discussion), the XP which ultimately appears in the post-verbal position
first undergoes leftward movement, and then, the rest of the clause (labeled as ) undergoes
remnant movement, yielding the XP-final order. On the other hand, the approach in (13b),
which is called the repetition and deletion approach (see Abe 1999, Tanaka 2001; cf. Kuno
1978), assumes that a Japanese right dislocation sentence consists of two near-identical-246- 246 -Pseudo-Right Dislocation and the Bare-Topic Construction in Japanese (K. Takita)clauses (S1 and S2). The surface string is argued to be derived via leftward movement of XP
within S2 followed by deletion of the rest of S2.4
(13) a.

b.

Double preposing approach[XPi [ … ti … V]]  [[ … ti … V] [XPi t]]Repetition and deletion approach[S1 … i … V], [S2 XPi [… ti … V]]

Although these approaches have certain advantages over the other, neither can
successfully capture the observations made in Section 2, simply because they do not
distinguish PRD from SRD (T&K’s analysis is reviewed in Section 3.3).5
In this paper I assume without further discussion that the properties of SRD are best
analyzed in terms of the repetition and deletion approach (see Takita 2011 and Yamashita
2011 for recent arguments). To capture the properties of PRD, then, I propose that theirproperties can be captured by the double preposing approach with a modification.
Specifically, I claim that PRD is derived from the bare-topic construction (see Taguchi 2009),
exemplified in (14), in the manner depicted in (15) (bare-topics are boxed).
(14) a.

Ano hon-Ø, Taroo-ga  katta-yo
that book Taroo-Nom bought-Prt‘Lit. That book, Taroo bought ’b.

Ano kooen-Ø, Taroo-ga  inu-o
hirotta-yo
that park
Taroo-Nom dog-Acc picked.up-Prt‘Lit. That park, Taroo picked up a dog ’c.

Ano saihu-Ø, Taroo-ga  okane-onusunda-yo
that wallet
Taroo-Nom money-Acc stole-Prt‘Lit. That wallet, Taroo stole money ’

4

See also Kayne (1994), Endo (1996) and Whitman (2000) for different implementations. Abe(1999) and Tanaka (2001) assume that the empty element within S1 is pro, while Takita (2011) points
out that it can be a result of ellipsis. I use  to suppress such analytical differences.

5

It is also proposed in the literature that the dislocated phrase undergoes rightward movement (see,for instance, Haraguchi 1973, Simon 1989, and Murayama 1999), or is base-generated in the rightedge of the clause (see, for instance, Sells 1999, Soshi and Hagiwara 2004). Takano (2010) proposes a
PF-based analysis building on a different set of data (for instance, he assumes that SRD is not islandsensitive). Although I do not review these approaches for reasons of space, it is worth noting that theyshare with the approaches in (13) the same problem regarding PRD (but see Section 3.3 for a potential
variant of the base-generation approach).

-247- 247 -2008(15) a.
b.

2012





[ bare-topic i [ … i … V]][[ … i … V] [ bare-topic i t ]]

(cf. (14))(cf. (2))

I assume, following Taguchi (2009), that bare-topics are base-generated in the left-periphery,
and related to the gap via non-movement dependency (cf. Kuno’s (1973) aboutness relation).6
Then, once the constituent labeled as in (15a) undergoes movement across the bare-topic,
the surface string of PRD results, as in (15b). In the next subsection, I illustrate how the
proposed analysis can capture the properties of PRD.
3.2.

Analysis

Let us start with the root restriction of PRD. As we have seen in (4) above, PRD is
restricted root clauses. Taguchi (2009) observes that the bare-topics are also restricted to root
clauses (see Taguchi 2009 for an account of the root restriction on bare-topics). For instance,
the examples in (16) are ungrammatical, which are putative derivational sources of theexamples in (4) under the proposed analysis.
(16) a. * Hanako-ga [ ano hon-Ø, Taroo-ga  kattato] omotteiru-yo
Hanako-Nom that book
Taroo-Nom bought C think-Prt‘Lit. Hanako thinks [that that book, Taroo bought ]’
hirottato] omotteiru-yo
b. *Hanako-ga [ ano kooen-Ø, Taroo-ga  inu-o
Hanako-Nom that park
Taroo-Nom dog-Acc picked.up C think-Prt‘Lit. Hanako thinks [that that park, Taroo picked up a dog ]’Hence, the root restriction on PRD is readily captured.
By assumption, bare-topics and their corresponding gaps are related via non-movement
dependency. Hence, they can participate in long-distance dependencies as shown in (17), andthey are island-insensitive as the examples in (18) indicate.
(17) a.

Ano hon-Ø, Hanako-ga [ Taroo-ga  kattato] itteita-yo
that book Hanako-Nom Taroo-Nom bought C said-Prt‘Lit. That book, Hanako said [that Taroo bought ]’b.

Ano kooen-Ø, Hanako-ga [ Taroo-ga  inu-o
hirottato] itteita-yo
that park
Hanako-Nom Taroo-Nom dog-Acc picked.up C said-Prt‘Lit. In that park, Hanako said [that Taroo picked up a dog ]’

6

I leave open the precise status of the gap in the bare-topic construction, although Taguchi (2009)
assumes that it is pro.

-248- 248 -Pseudo-Right Dislocation and the Bare-Topic Construction in Japanese (K. Takita)(18) a.

Ano hon-Ø, Hanako-ga [ Taroo-ga  sutetakara] totemo okotteiru-yo
that book Hanako-Nom Taroo-Nom discarded because very is.angry-Prt‘Lit. That book, [because Taroo discarded ], Hanako is very angry’b.

Ano kooen-Ø, Hanako-ga [[ inu-o
hirotta]hito]-ositteiru-yo
that park
Hanako-Nom
dog-Acc picked.up person-Acc know-Prt‘Lit. That park, Hanako knows [the person [who picked up a dog ]]’Since the examples in (17) and (18) can serve as the derivational sources of the PRD
examples in (3) and (5), respectively, the availability of long-distance dependency and theisland-insensitivity of PRD automatically follows.
Let us now turn to the reconstruction effects. As shown in (19) and (20), bare-topics
never exhibit reconstruction effects either for anaphors or for bound variables. Since baretopics are base-generated in the left-periphery by assumption, the required c-command
relations are never attested, hence the ungrammaticality of the relevant examples.
(19) a. * Zibunzisin-Ø i/j, Taroo-gai [ Hanako-gaj  semeta to] itteita-yo
self
Taroo-Nom Hanako-Nom
blamed C said-Prt‘Lit. Self, Taroo said [that Hanako blamed ]’ie-Ø, [ Taroo to Hanako]-gai  uta-o
utatta-yo
b. * Otagai-noi
each.other-Gen house Taroo and Hanako-Nom
song-Acc sang-Prt‘Lit. Each other’s house, Taroo and Hanako sang a song ’sakuhin-Ø, [ subete-no gaka]-gai hometa-yo(20) a. * Sonoi hito-nothat person-Gen work
all-Gen painter-Nom
praised-Prt‘Lit. His work, every painter praised ’ie-Ø, [ subete-no kodomo]-gai  uta-o
utatta-yo
b. * Sonoi ko-no
thatchild-Gen house all-Gen
child-Nomsong-Acc sang-Prt‘Lit. His house, Every child sang a song ’
Under the proposed analysis, the PRD counterparts of (19) and (20) (see (8) and (9)) are
derived by movement of the rest of the clause (namely the -part of (15a–b)) across the baretopics. The lack of reconstruction effects in PRD are then readily accommodated since such
movement never establishes the required c-command relations. That is, the elements in thedislocated phrase are never bound because they are not c-commanded by the elements
contained within the rest of the clause at any point of the derivation.

-249- 249 -

2008

2012







Finally, the pattern of doubling in PRD follows from the fact that the bare-topic
construction allows the gap to be realized as an overt pronoun while it results in marginality
with an identical full-fledged phrase, as shown in (21).
(21) a.

LGB-Ø, Taroo-ga {sore-o/??LGB-o} yonda-yo
LGB
Taroo-Nom {it-Acc LGB-Acc read-Prt‘Lit. LGB, Taroo read it/LGB’b.

Ano kooen-Ø, Taroo-ga {soko-de/??ano kooen-de} inu-o
hirotta-yo
that park
Taroo-Nom {there-in that park-in
dog-Acc picked.up-Prt‘Lit. That park, Taroo picked up a dog there/in that park’

Since the examples in (21) are the putative source of the PRD examples in (10), theirungrammaticality can be captured.7
3.3.

Notes on (Potential) Alternatives

Having established the close connection between PRD and the bare-topic construction,
this subsection examines some potential alternative analyses.
As a first hypothetical alternative, suppose that PRD has a schematic structure given in(22), where a bare-NP (namely a nominal without a Case-marker or postposition) is directlybase-generated in the right-periphery of the sentence.
(22)[… i … V] NP-Øi

Assuming that the NP is related to the gap via non-movement dependency, this analysis canachieve essentially the same results that the proposed analysis does for island-insensitivity
and lack of reconstruction effects.
Nonetheless, the proposed analysis is superior to this alternative in the following respects.
First, given the strict head-finality of Japanese, this alternative should stipulate that rightward
base-generation is somehow restricted to root clauses. Second, this alternative must attributeall the properties of PRD to the fact that the “dislocated” element is indeed base-generated in
the right-periphery. It seems, however, hard to test such a claim on independent grounds. On
the other hand, the proposed analysis clearly predicts that PRD and the bare-topic
construction behave exactly in the same way: For instance, it is predicted that when Casemarkers/postpositions on right dislocated phrases fail to be missing (see footnote 2), such
Case-markers/postpositions are also fail to be missing in the corresponding bare-topic
construction counterparts, while such predictions are never available for the alternative inquestion. Hence, pursing this alternative does not seem promising.
7

At this point I have no concrete account for why the bare-topic construction resists doubling ofidentical phrases. I leave it for future research (but see Section 4.1).

-250- 250 -Pseudo-Right Dislocation and the Bare-Topic Construction in Japanese (K. Takita)

The second hypothetical alternative is a combination of the repetition and deletion
approach and the idea that PRD is derived from the bare-topic construction.8 (23) illustrates aschematic structure of PRD under this analysis. In (23), the bare-topic construction isrepeated as S2, and everything except the bare-topic is deleted, yielding the desired word
order of PRD.
[S1 … i … V], [S2 bare-topic i [… i … V]](23)

Since the bare-topic construction is involved, this analysis can capture the following threeproperties of PRD in the same way as the proposed analysis does: the root restriction, islandinsensitivity, and the lack of reconstruction. This analysis cannot accommodate the pattern of
doubling, however. To see this point, let us consider how the original repetition and deletion
approach captures the fact about the full possibility of doubling in SRD. As we have seen in(10), SRD allows the gap to be overtly filled by an overt pronoun or a full-fledged phrase
identical to the dislocated one (the relevant example is repeated as (24a)). According to
Tanaka (2001), this is possible because (24a) can have something like (24b) as its underlying
source under the repetition and deletion approach. In (24b), S1 contains a pronoun/fullfledged phrase instead of a gap, and this is possible because S1 and S2 are independent fromeach other. Then, the alternative under discussion wrongly predicts that PRD parallels SRD,
because nothing prevents the gap within S1 in (23) from being overtly realized as in (24c),
which is as acceptable as (24b).
(24) a.

Taroo-ga {sore-o/LGB-o} yonda-yo, LGB-o
Taroo-Nom {it-Acc LGB-Acc read-Prt
LGB-Acc‘Lit. Taroo read LGB, LGB’b.

[S1 Taroo-ga {sore-o/LGB-o} yonda-yo], [S2 LGB-oi [Taroo-ga ti yonda-yo]]c.

[S1 Taroo-ga {sore-o/LGB-o} yonda-yo], [S2 LGB-Øi [Taroo-ga i yonda-yo]]Hence, this alternative is not adequate at least empirically.9
8

I thank Chizuru Nakao (p.c.) for pointing out this possibility.

9

A deeper question is why the structure in (23) is not available. One potential answer is that deletion
within S2 fails to be licensed. There are at least two possible ways of achieving this result. The firstone is to attribute the impossibility of deletion to the fact that clausal ellipsis requires some focalized
elements to be remnants in many cases (see Merchant 2001, van Craenenbroeck and Lipták 2006,
among many others). Since bare-topics cannot be focused, ellipsis cannot be licensed. The other is torelate it to the fact that bare-topics are base-generated elements; they cannot license ellipsis because
they are base-generated so that they fail to establish an agreement relation with a functional head,
which has been considered to be one of the crucial requirements for ellipsis licensing (see Lobeck
1990, Saito and Murasugi 1990). Although this is an important issue, addressing it is beyond the scopeof this paper.

-251- 251 -

2008

2012









The final alternative to be discussed is the analysis proposed by T&K. They argue that asentence of long-distance Case-less right dislocation (namely our PRD) should involve what
they call mixed A’-chains. In particular, they propose a schematic derivation in (25). In thisapproach, the thematic position is occupied by pro, and a null operator is base-generated in
the adjoined position of embedded CP, binding pro, as in (25a). Then, the null operator
undergoes movement to an appropriate position in order to be licensed.
(25) a.

b.

[… [CP Opi [CP …proi …]] …] NPi
bindingOpi [… [CP ti [CP …proi …]] …] NPi
movement

The resulting chain is called “mixed” because it consists of a binding relation and amovement relation (see also Kizu 2005 and references cited therein).
T&K’s analysis is especially designed to capture their judgments about reconstruction
found in (26a) (see (7)). Recall that for them the anaphor within the dislocated element can bebound by the matrix subject but not by the embedded subject. They try to capture thisobservation by assigning a partial structure like (26b) to (26a) (the mixed A’-chain relation
among Op, the trace of Op, and pro are indicated by the superscripted numeral).
(26) a.

Taroo-gai [ Hanako-gaj Ziroo-kara  moratta to] itteita-yo, zibun-noi/*?jTaroo-Nom Hanako-Nom Ziroo-from received C said-Prt self-Gen
ronbun-Ø
paper‘Lit. Taroo said [that Hanako received  from Ziroo], self’s paper’b.

[CP1 Op1 [TP1 Tarooi … [CP2 t1 [CP2 [TP2 Hanakoj … pro1 …]]]]] self’si/*?j paper

In (26b), the null operator moves from the embedded CP-adjoined position, so thatreconstruction can take place to the position below Taroo, but not to the position below
Hanako. In this way their analysis captures the “half-way” reconstruction pattern found in(26a).
Recall that this paper focuses on the speakers who do not share the crucial judgments forthe relevant cases with T&K (see (8) and (9)). Hence, it is not possible to evaluate theiranalysis on this point. Instead, I point out some potential problems of their analysis. First,
although they are not explicit about it, they seem to assume that the bare-NP in (25) is basegenerated in the right-periphery. Hence, their analysis carries over the problems of the directrightward generation approach discussed above.

-252- 252 -Pseudo-Right Dislocation and the Bare-Topic Construction in Japanese (K. Takita)

A more important problem has to do with the root restriction of PRD. T&K indeed argue
that the schematic derivation in (25) is available not only for right dislocation with Case-lessNPs but also for cleft constructions with bare-NP pivots and relative clauses (see footnote 3).
As shown in (27), the latter two constructions are not restricted to root clauses (the NPs
which structurally correspond to the ones in Case-less right dislocation are given in boldface).
(27) a.

Taroo-ga [[ Hanako-ga [ Ziroo-ga  yonda to] omottieru no]-ga kono
Taroo-Nom Hanako-Nom Ziroo-Nom read C think
C-Nom thishon dato] itta
book Cop C said
‘Taroo said that [it is this book [that Hanako thinks [that Ziroo bought]]]’

b.

katta
Taroo-ga [[ Hanako-ga [ Ziroo-ga  yonda to] omotteiru] hon]-oTaroo-Nom Hanako-Nom Ziroo-Nom read C thinkbook-Acc bought‘Taroo bought [the book [that Hanako thinks [Ziroo read]]]’Then, it becomes unclear how their analysis prevents PRD from being embedded on a parwith these two constructions.
To summarize this section, I proposed an analysis of PRD which closely relates it to thebare-topic construction. I also examined three potential alternatives to the proposed analysis,
and pointed out that all of them have certain conceptual and empirical problems. In the next
section, I argue that the proposed analysis can offer interesting implications if we turn ourattention to the relation between the bare-topic construction and Hanging Topic constructions.
4.
4.1.

The Relation between Bare-Topics and Hanging Topics and Its Implications
Bare-Topics as Hanging Topics

Hanging Topic constructions are found in various Romance and other languages, where a
topic phrase appears in the sentence initial position and is resumed by a certain kind ofelement such as pronouns within the sentence following it. Some concrete examples are givenin (28).10(28) a.

Italian (based on Cinque 1983, his (1))
Tuo fratello, invece, lui si che aveva
sempre fameyour brother however him yes that (he) was always hungry

10

Hanging Topics are boxed, and the elements resuming them are given in italics. The symbol # in(28c) and the examples to be provided in the text indicates an intonational break. Almost all theauthors I am relying on for the data to be presented in this section explicitly note that such aphonological break is observed between a Hanging Topic and the rest of the sentence in the languages
under discussion, which is also observed for the bare-topic construction.

-253- 253 -

2008

b.

2012









Colloquial Bulgarian (based on Krapova and Cinque 2008: 257)
Tja
i
bez
tova ne moga dajanakaramshe.Nom and without that not can.1sg Mod.Prt her.Cl.Acc make.1sg
dajade
Mod.Prt eat.3sg‘Her, anyway, I cannot make her eat’c.

German (based on Grohmann 2000a:140)
Deiser Satz, # ich mag ihn besonders
this.Nom sentence I
like him especially‘This sentence, I like it especially’

In Hanging Topic constructions, only NPs (or more precisely DPs) are allowed to be
dislocated, unlike other kinds of left-dislocation constructions such as Clitic Left-Dislocation(see Cinque 1977, 1990, to name a few), where various XPs including PPs can be dislocated(as long as appropriate resumptive elements can resume them). In the rest of this subsection, I
substantiate the claim that the bare-topic construction is subsumed under Hanging Topic
constructions by showing that the properties of the former discussed in the previous sections
are also found in the latter.11
The first property to be discussed is the root restriction (see (16)). Just like bare-topics,
Hanging Topics are restricted to root clauses, as in (29).
(29) a.

b.

Italian (based on Cinque 1983, his (11))* Credo che Mario, lui non venga
I.think that Mario he won't comeColloquial Bulgarian (base on Krapova and Cinque 2008:259)(*Ivan kaza e) Toj
ne mogat dagoprikrepjat(*Ivan said that he.Nom not can.3pl Mod.Prt him.Cl.Acc attach.3pl
kam nikogo
tonobody‘(Ivan said that) him, they cannot attach him to anyone’c.

German (based on Grohmann 2000a:145)* Ich glaube, dieser Satz,
wir haben ihn nun alle sattIbelieve thissentence we have it now all enough‘I believe this sentence, we’ve all had enough of it by now’11

In fact, Endo (2007) has already suggested a similarity between bare-topics in Japanese andHanging Topics in Italian. Thus, the attempts to be made in the text can be conceived as a concrete
extension of his idea.

-254- 254 -Pseudo-Right Dislocation and the Bare-Topic Construction in Japanese (K. Takita)

Second, Hanging Topics do not exhibit reconstruction effects, as the examples in (30)and (31) indicate. The a-examples in (30) and (31) indicate that anaphors within the Hanging
Topics cannot be licensed. In the b-examples in (30) and (31), the intended bound variable
readings are not available.
(30) German (based on Grohmann 2000a:141-142)
a. * Freunde von einander, Herforder
erzählen ihnen selten Lügen
friendof each.other Herfordians tellthem rarely lies
‘Friend of each other, Herfordians rarely tell them lies’
b. * Sein Vorgarten, jeder Herforder Bürger mag ihn
his front.lawn every Herfordian dweller like it‘His front lawn, every Herfordian likes it’(31) Greek (based on Anagnostopoulou 1997:155)
tu # o Jannis
den tonfrontizi
a. * O eaftos
the self.Nom his the John.Nom not Cl.Acc take.care.3sg‘Himself, John doesn’t take care of’b.

agapaiI
miteratu *j/i # kathenasj tin
the mother.Nom his
everyone Cl.Acc love.3sg‘His mother, everyone loves’

In this respect, too, the bare-topic construction patterns with Hanging Topic constructions(see (19) and (20)).
Third, recall that the bare-topic construction is island-insensitive (see (18)). Hanging
Topics constructions are also known to be island-insensitive cross-linguistically, as indicatedby the grammaticality of the examples in (32).12(32) a.

b.

Italian (based on Cinque 1983, his (13))
Giorgio, non conosco la ragazza che lui vuole sposare
Giorgio I don't know the girlthat he wants to marry
Colloquial Bulgarian (base on Krapova and Cinque 2008:263)
Ivan # Marija izbjaga,
kato mudaderozataIvan
Maria ran.away.3sg when him.Cl.Dat gave.3sg rose.art‘[As for] Ivan, Maria ran away after giving him the rose’12

Shaer and Frey (2004) use the symbol  in (32c) to indicate a prosodic break, which I believecorresponds to the one indicated by #.

-255- 255 -

2008

c.

2012







German (based on Shaer and Frey 2004:472)
Peter,  Maria hasst das Gerücht, dass die Maffia ihm geholfen hat
PeterMaria hates the rumor
that the Mafia him helped has‘Peter, Maria hates the rumor that the Mafia helped him’

Let us now consider the patterns of doubling in Hanging Topic constructions. In theexamples discussed so far, Hanging Topics are resumed by pronouns or clitics. As shown in(33), even epithets can resume them. However, the phrases identical to Hanging Topics are
not appropriate as resuming elements, as the degraded status of (34) indicates.13(33) a.

Italian (based on Benincà and Poletto 2004:65)
Mario, non daro piu
soldi a quell’imbecilleMario, not give anymore money to that idiot‘Mario, I won’t give more money to that idiot’b.

Colloquial Bulgarian (based on Krapova and Cinque 2008:261)
Maria az izobto njama dagovorja s
taja patka veeMaria I at.all
will.not Mod.Prt talk.1sg with this fool already‘[As for] Maria, I will not talk to this fool any more’(34)?

Italian (Giuliano Bocci, p.c.)
Mario, non daro piu
soldi a Mario
Mario, not give anymore money to Mario‘Mario, I won’t give more money to Mario’

As we have seen above, the bare-topic construction allows the gap to be realized as pronouns
but not as full-fledged phrases. The example in (35) confirms this observation, further
showing that the gap can be realized as an epithet.14(35)

Taroo-Ø, boku-wa mou{/kare-ni/ano baka-ni/??Taroo-ni} okane-o
Taroo
I-Top
anymore him-to that idiot-to Taroo-to money-Acc
age-naigive-Neg‘Lit. Taroo, I won’t give more money /to him/to that idiot/to Taroo’

13

I thank Giuliano Bocci (p.c.) for making judgments on this example.

14

One may wonder whether there is a significant difference between the status of (34) and that of?
??
(35) (namely, “ ” vs. “ ”). I assume that there is no significant difference, because even in Japanese,the marginality of the relevant examples shows much individual variation. Nonetheless, none of myinformants accepts doubling of identical phrases as equally as that of pronouns/epithets. I believe thesituation is similar for Italian (or other languages).

-256- 256 -Pseudo-Right Dislocation and the Bare-Topic Construction in Japanese (K. Takita)

Therefore, the bare-topic construction again behaves like Hanging Topic constructions withrespect to the patterns of doubling.
The final property examined here is the fact that a part of idiom chunks cannot be a
Hanging Topic. Some concrete examples are given in (36).
(36) a.

German (based on Grohmann 2000a:144)* Der Kopf, der Alex hat ihn gestern
der Maria verdrecht
the head the Alex has it yesterday the Maria twisted‘Maria’s head, Alex turned it yesterday’b.

Greek (based on Anagnostopoulou 1997:155)* I tixitu# kathe ftoxos tin
ekane pigenontas stin Ameriki
the luck.Nom his.Gen every poor Cl.Acc made goingto.the States‘The poor made their luck/fortune by going to the States’

As is expected, a part of idiom chunks cannot be bare-topics as well, as in (37). The
grammaticality of (37a) indicates that the idiom kimo-o hiyas- can be split up by scrambling.
On the other hand, its bare-topic construction counterpart is ungrammatical as in (37b).15
15

As shown in (i), a contrast similar to the one found in (37) is also observed between SRD and PRD.
That is, SRD is grammatical with a part of idiom chunks while PRD is not (I thank Keiko Murasugi
for raising this issue).

(i)

Minna-ga sono ziko-ni

all-Nom that accident-Dat

hiyasita-yo,
chilled-Prt

kimo-{o/*Ø}
chlokyst-Acc‘(intended) Everyone was frightened at the accident’
One complication arises from Tanaka’s (2001) observation given in (ii) (adapted from Tanaka
2001:575 with his judgment). He observes that SRD with a part of idiom chunks is possible only if the
gap is realized as a full-fledged phrase.
(ii)

John-ga {hara-o/??} tateta-yo,
John-Nom {stomach-Acc set.up-Prt

hara-ostomach-Acc‘(intended) John got upset’
According to Tanaka (2001), this is because something like (iiia) underlies (ii) with the gap, where
pro and the verb in S1 do not constitute a complete idiom. On the other hand, (ii) with the full-fledgedphrase has (iiib) as its underlying form, where both S1 and S2 contain a complete idiom.
(iii)

a.

[S1 John-ga pro tateta-yo], [S2 hara-oi [John-ga ti tateta-yo]]b.

[S1 John-ga hara-o tateta-yo], [S2 hara-oi [John-ga ti tateta-yo]]

Although Tanaka’s (2001) argument is sound, it is not compatible with the high acceptability of the
SRD version of (i). Meanwhile, Takita (2011) argues that the gap may be derived via ellipsis. Then, if
ellipsis can target a part of an idiom within S1 (such as hara-o in (iiib)), nothing seems to prevent the-257- 257 -2008(37) a.

2012









ti hiyasita-yo
Kimo-oi, minna-ga sono ziko-ni
liver-Acc all-Nom that accident-Dat chilled-Prt‘(intended) Everyone was frightened at the accident’ hiyasita-yo
b. * Kimo-Ø, minna-ga sono ziko-ni
liver
all-Nom that accident-Dat
chilled-Prt
To sum up, all the properties of the bare-topic construction are also found in Hanging
Topic constructions, supporting the idea that the former is subsumed under the latter. Putting
aside the root restriction (but see footnote 17) and the marginality of doubling with identicalphrases, the other properties straightforwardly follow from the idea that bare-topics andHanging Topics are both base-generated in the left-periphery and related to the gap via nonmovement dependency.
4.2.

Some Implications

Having substantiated the perspective that equates the bare-topic construction in Japanesewith Hanging Topic constructions found in various other languages, I discuss some
implications of the current perspective.
The first implication has to do with the lack of Case-connectivity in Hanging Topic
constructions. Let us consider the examples in (38), repeated from (28b–c).
(38) a.

Tjaibez
tova ne moga dajanakaramshe.Nom and without that not can.1sg Mod.Prt her.Cl.Acc make.1sg
dajade
Mod.Prt eat.3sg‘Her, anyway, I cannot make her eat’b.

Deiser Satz, # ich mag ihn besonders
this.Nom sentence I
like him especially‘This sentence, I like it especially’

In Hanging Topic constructions, the Case of the topic can differ from that of its
corresponding element within the clause. For instance, in (38a), the topic tja is marked asnominative, while the corresponding clitic ja is marked as accusative. Given that Hanging
Topics tend to bear the default (or, unmarked) Case of the language (see, for instance, Boeckx
and Grohmann 2005, Krapova and Cinque 2008), our claim that equates bare-topics with
Hanging Topics implies that no-marking is the default option in Japanese.

part of the idiom from appearing in SRD. In fact, the contrast in (ii) is much weaker than the one
found in (i). Hence, I assume that the derivation employing ellipsis sketched above is indeed available,
and the reported contrast in (ii) is due to some independent factors.

-258- 258 -Pseudo-Right Dislocation and the Bare-Topic Construction in Japanese (K. Takita)

The second implication concerns the word order restriction found in Hanging Topics
constructions. As shown by the examples in (39), Hanging Topics must precede the elementsthat have been moved from within the clause.
(39) a.

b.

Italian (based on Benincà and Poletto 2004:65)(Giorgio,) ai nostri amici, (*Giorgio,) non parlo mai di lui(Giorgio to the our friends (*Giorgio not talk never of him
Colloquial Bulgarian (based on Krapova and Cinque 2008:263)(Az)mene (*az)
ote mee jad, e togava ne te(I.Nom me.Acc (*I.Nom still me.Cl.Acc is anger that then not you.Cl.Acc
posluax
listened.1sg‘Me, I am still angry that you didn’t listen to me’c.

German (based on Grohmann 2000a:146)* Der Alex i, den Wagenj, die Mutter k, denj hat siek ihmi geschenkt
the Alex the car
the mother it
has she him given‘Alex, the car, the mother, she gave it to him’

In (39a–b), the sentence becomes ungrammatical if the Hanging Topics Giorgio and az ‘I’ arepreceded by the elements that have undergone Clitic Left Dislocation. The ungrammaticalityof (39c) is due to the fact that the second Hanging Topic (namely die Mutter ‘the mother’) is
preceded by den Wagen ‘the car’, which has undergone Contrastive Left Dislocation(Thráinsson 1979, Zaenen 1980, Altmann 1981; see also Anagnostopoulou 1997, Grohmann
2000a, b and references cited therein, among many others). Based on these observations, it
has been proposed that nothing can be moved to a position higher than the position for
Hanging Topics (see, for instance, Benincà and Poletto 2004).
Recall at this point that the proposed analysis of PRD requires a movement across a baretopic, which is now regarded as an instance of a Hanging Topic under the current perspective(see (15b) above). Suppose that such a movement is possible in Japanese because it has
scrambling. Then, it is predicted that in the languages discussed so far (which arguably lack
Japanese-style scrambling) never allow Hanging Topics to appear in the right-periphery.
Furthermore, if this prediction is shown to be borne out, the availability of Hanging Topics on
the right periphery in turn can be conceived as a new diagnostic test for the availability ofJapanese-style scrambling, in addition to the radical reconstruction property (Saito 1989).16
16

Yuji Takano (p.c.) points out that scrambling across a bare-topic is not allowed, as shown in (i), a
fact which appears to be not compatible with the idea discussed in the text.
?

(i) * Inu-oi
ano kooen-Ø, Taroo-ga
dog-Acc that park
Taroo-Nom

 ti hirotta-yo
picked.up-Prt‘Lit. A dogi, that park, Taroo picked up ti ’-259- 259 -

2008

2012









That is, we can address whether Japanese-style scrambling is available for languages where
its existence is highly controversial by examining whether Hanging Topics can appear in theright periphery in such languages.
Another implication, related but independent, also comes from the word order restriction
illustrated in (39). Based on these and other observations, Benincà and Poletto (2004) proposethat there are two kinds of “topic” positions in the left periphery. To be more specific, theyargue that the highest position in the left periphery is reserved exclusively for base-generated
topics (namely Hanging Topics), while the lower topic position functions as a landing site forelements that have undergone movement (for instance, Clitic Left Dislocation), as
schematically shown in (40).17(40)[Hanging Topic [ForceP [... [(Clitic) Left Dislocationi [... [IP ... ti ...]]]]]]
base-generation
movement

That is, languages like Italian allow two strategies for topic-related elements, andcorrespondingly there are two positions for them depending on which strategy is taken.
As for Japanese, many researchers have argued that topics marked with -wa can appear in
the sentence-initial position via movement or base-generation (see Saito 1985, Hoji 1985,
among many others). The fact that -wa-marked topics are island-insensitive (Kuno 1973) asshown in (41a) has been taken as evidence for the claim that they can be base-generated andrelated to the gap via non-movement dependency. On the other hand, Hoji (1985) observes
that -wa-marked topics exhibit reconstruction effects, indicating that they can undergo
movement. For instance, (41b) allows the intended bound-variable reading (cf. (20a)).18

However, the degraded status of (i) does not necessarily indicate the impossibility of such scrambling.
As briefly mentioned in footnote 10, there is a phonological break between a bare-topic and the rest of
the sentence. Suppose that while scrambling in (i) blocks a proper assignment of the phonologicalbreak, movement across a bare-topic in PRD does not because the bare-topic ultimately appears in thesentence-final position, which is followed by a break by definition. If this account can be maintained,
the degraded status of (i) ceases to be a problem for our approach.
17

Benincà and Poletto (2004) suggest relating the root restriction on Hanging Topics to the fact thatthey are base-generated in the highest position in the left-periphery.

18

Hoji (1985) notes that reconstruction effects are observed for contrastive topics but not for thematic
topics. Based on this observation, he suggests that thematic topics are base-generated in the sentenceinitial position while contrastive topics are moved to that position. In this respect, Hoji’s (1985)
dichotomy nicely corresponds to the one made by Benincà and Poletto (2004). However, Saito (2010),
building on Kuroda (1988), observes that in certain cases the -wa-marked topics that have clearly
undergone movement can be interpreted as thematic topics, obscuring Hoji’s (1985) dichotomy.
Hence, I gloss over these two interpretations of -wa-marked topics.

-260- 260 -Pseudo-Right Dislocation and the Bare-Topic Construction in Japanese (K. Takita)(41) a.

Ano sinsi-wai[[[i kiteiru]
yoohuku]-ga yogoreteiru]
that gentleman-Top
is.wearing suit-Nom
dirty‘Lit. That gentlemani, the suit that  is wearing is dirty’b.

sakuhin-waj, [ subete-no gaka]-gaij hometa
Sonoi hito-nothat person-Gen work
all-Gen painter-Nom
praised‘Lit. His work, every painter praised ’

Taken together with Benincà and Poletto’s (2004) proposal, one novel question arises:-wa-marked topics are located in the same position, no matter whether it is base-generated or
moved, or, they are in different positions depending on the ways by which they are
introduced to the structure, just like Italian. If we are looking at topics marked with -wa only,
it is not easy to tease apart these two possibilities. On the other hand, it becomes much easier
to approach this question under the current perspective that equates bare-topics with Hanging
Topics. Specifically, the properties of bare-topics discussed so far indicate that even in
Japanese there is a position exclusively reserved for base-generated topics. Then, I suggestthat even for -wa-marked topics, base-generated ones and moved ones occupy different
positions.19
Finally, let us consider the cases of PRD and the bare-topic construction with multiple
elements. (42) illustrates their schematic structures.

19

It is then further implied that right dislocation of -wa-marked NPs is structurally ambiguous
between SRD and PRD. Therefore, it is predicted that it obeys the root restriction, exhibits islandinsensitivity and reconstruction effects, and allows doubling. The following examples indicate thatthese predictions are borne out.
(i)a. * Hanako-ga[ Taroo-ga
 katta (to) ano hon-wa (to)] omotteiru-yo
Hanako-Nom Taroo-Nom
bought (C that book-Top (C think-Prt‘Lit. Hanako thinks [that Taroo bought , that book]’b.

[ Taroo-ga
 suteta
kara]
Hanako-ga
totemo okotteiru-yo, ano hon-wa
Taroo-Nom
discarded because Hanako-Nom very
is.angry-Prt that book-Top‘Lit. [Because Taroo discarded ], Hanako is very angry, that book’c.

[ Subete-no gaka]-gaiall-Genpainter-Nom

hometa-yo, sonoi hito-no
sakuhin-wa
praised-Prt that person-Gen work

‘Lit. every painter praised , his work’d.

Taroo-ga{sore-wa/LGB-wa} yonda-yo, LGB-wa
Taroo-Nom {it-Top LGB-Top read-Prt
LGB-Top‘Lit. Taroo read it/LGB, LGB’

See also Yamashita (2011) for other properties of right dislocation of -wa-marked elements.

-261- 261 -2008(42) a.
b.

2012







[... i ... j ... V], NP-Ø i, NP-Ø j[ NP-Ø i, NP-Ø j, [ ... i ... j ... V]

Although SRD with multiple elements is indeed attested and investigated in the literature(see, for instance, Abe 1999), it is not an easy task to construct a clear paradigm of PRD withmultiple elements (see footnote 16 for a potential source of complications). Similarly, it is notclear at this point whether multiple bare-topics are possible, because the relevant judgments
are quite subtle and vary from example to example.
Under the proposed analysis, PRD examples of the form in (42a) is derived from theirbare-topic construction counterparts of the form in (42b). Given the claim that the bare-topic
construction is subsumed under Hanging Topic constructions, we can tackle the issue
concerning PRD and the bare-topic construction with multiple elements by looking at
whether multiple Hanging Topics are allowed.
Indeed, there is an interesting cross-linguistic variation regarding Hanging Topic
constructions. As shown in (43), Italian disallows multiple Hanging Topics (Krapova andCinque 2008:263 note that the same holds for Bulgarian).
(43) a. * Tuo fratello, Mario, lei ama lui
your brother Mario she loves him(based on Cinque 1983, his (10))

b. * Gianni, questo libro, non ne hanno
parlato a lui
Gianni, thisbook, they of-it haven't talked to him(based on Benincà and Poletto 2004:64)
On the other hand, German allows multiple Hanging Topics, as the examples in (44) indicate.
(44) a.

hat siek ihmi denj geschenkt
Alex i, der Wagen j, die Mutter k, gesternAlex the car
the mother yesterday has she him it given‘Alex, the car, the mother, yesterday she gave it to him’(based on Grohmann 2000:145)b.

Dem Alex, das Geld, du hättest
es ihm nicht wegnehmen dürfen
the Alex the money you would.have it to.him not take.away from‘To Alex, the money, you should not have taken it away from him’(based on Shaer and Frey 2004:490)

Given this cross-linguistic variation, it seems helpful to examine first whether Japanesebelongs to the Italian/Bulgarian type or the German type in this respect, in order to investigate
PRD and the bare-topic constructions with multiple elements on more solid grounds.
Meanwhile, such attempts should provide a key in elucidating the source of the crosslinguistic variation. Although addressing these issues is beyond the scope of this paper and-262- 262 -Pseudo-Right Dislocation and the Bare-Topic Construction in Japanese (K. Takita)

deserves separate research, it is worth emphasizing that these research topics are achieved by
the perspective that the bare-topic construction is subsumed under Hanging Topic
constructions.
5.

Conclusion

In this paper, I first provided several properties of PRD, comparing it with SRD. Then, I
argued that the properties of PRD can be captured by proposing that it is derived from thebare-topic construction. Second, illustrating that the bare-topic construction can be equatedwith Hanging Topic constructions found in various Romance and other languages, I pointed
out that the current perspective offers a number of novel implications. Although moredetailed investigations of these implications are necessary, this paper provides a fresh view tocross-linguistic studies of the syntax of topics.

References
Altmann, H. (1981) Formen der “Herausstellung” im Deutschen: Rechtsversetzung, Linksversetzung,Freies Thema und verwandte Konstruktionen, Max Niemeyer, Tübingen.
Anagnostpoulou, E. (1997) “Clitic Left Dislocation and Contrastive Left Dislocation.” In E.
Anagnostopoulou, H. van Riemsdijk and F. Zwarts, eds., Materials on Left Dislocation,
John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 151–192.
Anagnostpoulou, E., H. van Riemsdijk and F. Zwarts (1997) Materials on Left Dislocation, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Abe, J. (1999) “On Directionality of Movement: A Case of Japanese Right Dislocation,” ms., Nagoya
University.
Belletti, A. (2008) “Pronouns and the Edge of the Clause.” In A. Belletti (2008) Structures andStrategies, Routledge, London, Chapter 11.
Benincà, P. and C. Poletto (2004) “Topic, Focus, and V2: Defining the CP Sublayers.” In L. Rizzi,ed., The Structure of CP and IP, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 104–131.
Boecxk, C. and K. K. Grohmann (2005) “Left Dislocation in Germanic.” In W. Abraham, ed., Focus
on Germanic Typology, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 131–144.
Cinque, G. (1977) “The Movement Nature of Left Dislocation,” Linguistic Inquiry 8, 397–412.
Cinque, G. (1983) “Topic Constructions in Some European Languages and Connectedness.” In K.
Ehlich and H. van Riemsdijk, eds. Connectedness in Sentence, Text, and Discourse, Tilburg
University, Tilburg, 7–41. [Reprinted in Anagnostopoulou et al. 1997]
Cinque, G. (1990) Types of A’-dependencies, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Craenenbroeck, van J. and A. Lipták (2006) “The Crosslinguistic Syntax of Sluicing: Evidence from
Hungarian Relatives,” Syntax 9, 248–274.
Endo, Y. (1996) “Right Dislocation.” In M. Koizumi et al. eds., Formal Approaches to Japanese
Linguisics (FAJL 2), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 29, 1–20.
Endo, Y. (2007) Locality and Information Structure: A Cartographic Approach to Japanese, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Frey, W. (2004) “Notes on the Syntax and the Pragmatics of German Left Dislocation.” In H.
Lohnstein and S. Trissller, eds., The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery, Mouton de
Gruyter, Berlin, 203–234.
Grohmann, K. K. (2000a) “Copy Left Dislocation,” Proceedings of WCCFL 19, 139–152.

-263- 263 -

2008

2012









Grohmann, K. K. (2000b) “A Movement Approach to Contrastive Left Dislocation,” Rivista di
Grammatica Generativa 25, 3–65.
Fukutomi, Y. (2007) “Japanese Right Dislocation: A Preliminary Study,” paper presented at the On
Linguistic Interfaces (OnLI) Conference, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland.
Haraguchi, S. (1973) “Remarks on Right Dislocation in Japanese,” ms., MIT.
Hoji, H. (1985) Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Washington.
Inoue, K. (1978) Nihongo-no Bunpoo-kisoku [Grammatical Rules of Japanese], Taishuukan, Tokyo.
Kayne, R. S. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kizu, M. (2005) Cleft Constructions in Japanese Syntax, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, UK.
Krapova, I. and G. Cinque (2008) “Clitic Reduplication Constructions in Bulgarian.” In D. Kallulli
and L. Tasmowski, eds., Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam, 257–287.
Kuno, S. (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Languages, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kuno, S. (1978) Danwa-no Bunpoo [Grammar of Discourse], Taishuukan, Tokyo.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988) “Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English and Japanese,”
Linguisticae Investigationes 12, 1–47.
Kurogi, A. (2007) Nihongo Uhooteni-bun no Sahoo-idoo Bunseki [A Leftward Movement Analysis ofJapanese Right Dislocation], Ph.D. dissertation, Tohoku University.
Lobeck, A. (1990) “Functional Heads as Proper Governors,” NELS 20, 348–362.
Murayama, K. (1999) “An Argument for Japanese Right Dislocation as a Feature-Driven Movement,”
Gengokagakukenkyu 5, Kanda University of International Studies, 45–62.
Ross, J. R. (1967) Constraints on Variables in Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Saito, M. (1985) Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications, Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Saito, M. (1989) “Scrambling as Semantically Vacuous A’-movement.” In M. R. Baltin and A. Kroch,eds., Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
182–200.
Saito, M. (2010) “Semantic and Discourse Interpretation of the Japanese Left Periphery.” In N.
Erteschik-Shir and L. Rochman, eds., The Sound Patterns of Syntax, Oxford University
Press, Oxford, 140–173.
Saito, M. and K. Murasugi (1990) “N’-ellipsis in Japanese: A Preliminary Study,” Japanese/Korean
Linguistics 1, 285–301.
Sells, P. (1999) “Postposing in Japanese,” ms., Stanford University.
Shaer, B. and W. Frey (2004) “‘Integrated’ and ‘Non-integrated’ Left-peripheral Elements in German
and English,” ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35, 465–502.
Simon, M. E. (1989) An Analysis of Postposing Construction in Japanese, Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Michigan.
Soshi, T. and H. Hagiwara (2004) “Asymmetry in Linguistic Dependency: Linguistic andPsychophysiological Studies of Japanese Right Dislocation,” English Linguistics 21, 409–
453.
Taguchi, S. (2009) “Japanese ECM as Embedded Bare Topicalization,” Proceedings of NELS 38,
415–426.
Takano, Y. (2010) “A Comparative Approach to Japanese Postposing,” ms., Kinjo Gakuin University.
Takita, K. (2011) “Argument Ellipsis in Japanese Right Dislocation,” Japanese/Korean Linguistics
18, 380–391.
Tanaka, H. (2001) “Right-Dislocation as Scrambling,” Journal of Linguistics 37, 551–579.
Tanaka, H. and M. Kizu (2006) “Island Insensitive Constructions in Japanese,” handout for the 15th
Linguistic Colloquium, Nanzan University.

-264- 264 -Pseudo-Right Dislocation and the Bare-Topic Construction in Japanese (K. Takita)

Tanaka, H. and M. Kizu (2007) “Island Insensitive Constructions in Japanese,” York Papers in
Linguistics 2, 219–234.
Thráinsson, H. (1979) On Complementation in Icelandic, Garland, New York.
Vat, J. (1981) “Left Dislocation, Connectedness, and Reconstruction,” Groninger Arbeiten zur
germanistischen Linguistik 20, 80-103. [Reprinted in Anagnostopoulou et.al. 1997]
Whitman, J. (2000) “Right Dislocation in English and Japanese,” In K. Takami, A. Kamio and J.
Whitman, eds., Syntactic and Functional Explorations in Honor of Susumu Kuno, Kuroshio
Publishers, Tokyo, 445–470.
Yamashita, H. (2011) “An(other) Argument for the “Repetition” Analysis of Japanese Right
Dislocation: Evidence from the Distribution of Thematic Topic -Wa,” Japanese/Korean
Linguistics 18, 410–422.
Zaenen, A. (1980) Extraction Rules in Icelandic, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.

-265- 265 -  2
Nanzan Linguistics 9  NOTES ON THE ‘ARGUMENT TRANSFER’ PROBLEM
FOR CONFIGURATIONAL -THEORY *Tomohiro Fujii
Yokohama National University

1.

Introduction‘Configurational’ argument structure has been popular in generative syntax since Hale &Keyser’s (1993) seminal work (see also Hale & Keyser 2002, Chomsky 1995, Baker 1997,
Harley 2011). The grammatical process called Argument Transfer, which is found with averbal noun construction in Japanese like (1) below, could pose an empirical problem for theconfigurational approach to argument structure.
(1)

Hiroshi-wa sono ginkoo-kara genkin-no
Hiroshi-TOP that bank-from cash-GEN

goodatu-okokoromita
stealing-ACC attempted‘Hiroshi attempted stealing of money in cash from the bank.’
The issue has been addressed by Hoshi (2002a, b). Calling this problem an ‘Argument
Transfer’ problem for configurational -theory, the present paper attempts a further
investigation into the issue that Hoshi addresses. The paper agues:(i) an approach that can most clearly be characterized as an alternative to theconfigurational approach is what we might call a featural approach;(ii) the major properties of Argument Transfer can be handled more straightforwardly
under the F-approach (Saito & Hoshi 1998, 2000) than under the C-approach, and(iii) nevertheless, it is not impossible to work out a way out of the problem for theconfigurational approach.
The paper also demonstrates:(iv) an initial attempt to motivate the ‘configurational’ analysis of Argument Transfer
on independent grounds (cf. Matsumoto 1996b) does not succeed at least whentaken at face value.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 is devoted to classifying approaches toargument structure in terms of the configurational vs. featural distinction. Section 3 reviews* I benefited from discussions with the participants in the Fall 2012 graduate syntax study group at
Yokohama National University. I also thank Masaya Yoshida for helpful discussion.

-269-

2008

2012







the major properties of Argument Transfer (AT) based on Grimshaw & Mester (1988).
Section 4 also reviews how the featural approach proposed in Hoshi (1995), Saito & Hoshi(1998, 2000) can nicely account for these properties. Then sections 5 and 6 develop andconsider a configurational account of AT, showing that AT can be made compatible with theconfigurational approach by making a certain set of assumptions. Section 7 attempts to test
the proposed configurational analysis on independent grounds, even though, as we will see,the results fail to support the analysis, if not against it. Section 8 concludes the paper byaddressing one other issue about the ‘configurational vs. featural’ debate.
2.

Two Approaches to Argument Structure: Configurational vs. Featural

This section is devoted to characterizing one alternative to the configurational approachto argument structure, namely a featural approach. In what follows, I dub the former the Capproach and the latter the F-approach.
One of the most popular instances of the C-approach is Hale & Keyser’s (1993, 2002)
work. Their main proposal is that a particular thematic role is associated with a particularsyntactic position defined in phrase-structure theoretic terms. For concreteness, let us ask
ourselves why John kissed Mary does not mean what Mary kissed John means. If we take
Chomsky’s (1995) familiar implementation of the C-approach, the question can be rephrased
as follows. Why wouldn’t a structure like (2) obtain and yield the unwanted result?
(2)

[vP 
v
Patient[VP V Agent]]

Hake & Keyser (1993:68-69) remark:Corresponding to this syntactic relation [where a verb phrase is immediately
embedded under another verb phrase], there is a similarly asymmetric (semantic)
relation between two events, a relation we will take to be that of implication.
Accordingly, the matrix event "implicates" the subordinate event as in [e1e2], a
relation that makes perfect sense if the syntactic embedding corresponds to a"semantic" composite in which the subordinate event is a proper part of the event
denoted by the structure projected by the main verb.
Crudely put, the ‘configurational’ answer is that (2) would violate principles of lexical
meaning composition.
One direct consequence of the C-approach is that it explains why the UTAH (Uniformityof Thematic Assignment Hypothesis, Baker 1988) holds, as Hale & Keyser note.1 Also, if we
assume that there aren’t so many legitimate conceptual relations among events, then, there
1

The hypothesis states that (i)dentical thematic relationships between items are represented by
identical structural relationships between those items at the level of D-structure (Baker 1988:46).

-270- 270 -Notes on the ‘Argument Transfer’ Problem for Configurational -Theory (T. Fujii)

will not be many different syntactic templates, accordingly; hence there are a few -roles.
Next turn to the F-approach. I take the following to be the most prominent characteristicof this approach. In this approach, argument structure is taken to be information that a lexical
item bears as a feature of it. A consequence of this featural view of argument structure then isthat it allows the thematic status of a syntactic position to change in principle in the course ofderivation. Consider one concrete case. Jackendoff (1990) comments on Larson’s (1988)
derivation of the dative construction given in (3).
(3)

[VP1 NP [V e ] [VP2 a letter send to Mary]]

Jackendoff (pp.450-51) observes:… the subject lies outside the maximal projection of send in D-structure, namely thelower VP. Therefore send cannot -mark its subject until it has raised into the upper
VP. In other words, -marking has suddenly become a derived structure property.
Jackendoff seems right that Spec,VP1 becomes a -position only after send substituting forthe empty verb, because Larson (1988) assumes that a predicate must -mark an argument of
it within its maximal projection.2 Thus the thematic status of Spec,VP1 changes due to Vmovement. The point here is that this manner of -role assignment is possible cruciallybecause send moves around with its agent-licensing ability. In other words, such -role
assignment in a derived position would be impossible if the agent-licensing ability of send
were not a feature of the lexical head. It should be very clear that this featural view cannot beshared by the C-approach, because, under the latter approach, thematic roles are notproperties of lexical heads per se, but those of a phrase structural configuration resulting fromcomposition of lexical heads.
Thus, the F-approach has to answer the question of how John kissed Mary does notmean ‘Mary kissed John’ in a different way than the C-approach does. The UTAH needs tobe relativized for the F-approach. Baker (1997:108) calls it the RUTAH and writes:
Baker’s [1988] original statement of the UTAH implies that particular thematic roles
were associated with particular syntactic positions in an absolute sense. However,many other researchers assume that only the relative positions of the arguments areimportant. On this view, it does not matter exactly what syntactic position (say) atheme phrase is generated in, as long as it is higher than any goal phrase and lower
than any agent phrase in the same clause. We may call a condition of this kind theRelativized UTAH, or RUTAH.
Analyzing John put some beer in the cooler, Larson (1990:598) argues that its base structure2

In his reply to Jackendoff, Larson doesn’t accept Jackendoff’s interpretation of his derivation givenin (3).

-271- 271 -

2008

2012









given in (4) does not entail that some beer can be understood as an agent even though it is in
the specifier of send. This is because the RUTAH dictates that the most prominent role,
Agent, goes with a higher A-position, Spec,VP1.
(4)[VP1 John [V e ] [VP2 some beer [V’ put in the cooler]]

Likewise, if John kissed Mary were understood to mean ‘Mary kissed John’ (i.e. the situation
provided in (2)), that would result in violation of the RUTAH.
Given the stories told in the last two paragraphs, the following two can be noted as the
key features of the F-approach to argument structure: (i) thematic information is represented
as a feature of a lexical item; and (ii) the RUTAH-based thematic hierarchy is incorporated to
explain why -roles are projected in structure in the way they actually are. In this light, thetype of lexical representation that Grimshaw 1990 adopts (e.g., (5)) reflects these features of
the F-approach rather clearly.
(5)

kiss

(x
(y))
Agent Theme

Parentheses explicitly indicate that Agent is prominent over Theme, and that information isrepresented as a feature of the lexical item kiss.
Before we proceed, I would like to make one point about the relationship between the Capproach and the notion ‘-feature’. Sometimes a proposal referring to '-feature' can berecast without appealing to it in the sense of the notion characterized above. For instance, takeHornstein’s (1999) well known analysis of Obligatory Control using -features to drive
movement into -position. As Harley (2011) correctly notes, a movement theory of control iscompatible at least with a version of the C-approach. Given that Move (= external Merge) andMerge (=internal Merge) are unified (e.g., Chomsky 2008), one seems to even need astipulation to stop the system to internally merge an argument in a new -position (e.g. Dstructure or Chomsky’s (2000) constraint on -positions and first merger of arguments) under
the C-approach. In this respect, the Saito & Hoshi style analysis of Argument Transfer
reflects the nature of the F-approach in a clearer manner, as we will see in section 3.
The next section lays out the major properties of AT that Grimshaw & Mester
discovered and that Saito & Hoshi attempt to explain.
3.

Argument Transfer

As alluded to in section 1, we focus on ‘Verbal Noun-ACC’ and related constructions inJapanese.3 The examples of VN-ACC constructions given in (6a-c) illustrate AT.4
3

Although I cannot afford to discuss the cross-linguistic status of this grammatical process inJapanese, let me make one comment on examples like John gave Bill permission to buy a car.

-272- 272 -Notes on the ‘Argument Transfer’ Problem for Configurational -Theory (T. Fujii)(6)a. Hiroshi-wa[VNP sono ginkoo-kara-no genkin-no
Hiroshi-TOP
that bank-from-GEN cash-GEN
kokoromita.
attempted

goodatu]-ostealing-ACC‘Hiroshi attempted stealing of cash from the bank.’b. Hiroshi-wa sono ginkoo-kara
Hiroshi-TOP that bank-fromkokoromita.
[VNP genkin-no goodatu]-ocash-GEN stealing-ACC attemptedkokoromita.
c. ? Hiroshi-wa sono ginkoo-kara genkin-o [VNP goodatu]-o
Hiroshi-TOP that bank-from cash-ACC
stealing-ACC attempted
In each of these cases, the complement is headed by the Verbal Noun (VN) goodatu‘stealing’; the VN is directly followed by an accusative case marker; and the complement is
obligatorily controlled; e.g., Mary-mo kokoromita ‘Mary also attempted’ only allows a sloppy
interpretation when it follows any of these examples. They just differ from one another withregard to where internal arguments of the VN are located in surface structure. All the internalarguments are located inside the VNP in (6a); one of them is located outside it in (6b); all thetwo are located outside it in (6c). This way, an internal argument of the embedded predicate
noun shows up as either a surface-structure dependent of that noun or a surface-structure
dependent of the matrix verb in this construction. Grimshaw and Mester propose Argument
Transfer (AT) to refer to this effect: In this view, (part of) the argument structure of a VN istransferred to the matrix verb in (6b, c).5 Throughout the paper, I use AT as a cover term torefer to this phenomenon or grammatical effect, and sometimes call a pattern like (6a), where
AT does not apply at all, the simple VN-ACC construction, as opposed to its ATedcounterparts [(6b, c)].
In addition to the basic paradigm in (6), let us note that these VN-ACC constructions
have what we might call a VN-suru koto-ACC counterpart. One example is given in (7).

According to Baker (1996: 353ff), an example like this involves AT. He remarks that “[i]n general,lexical properties of the light verb determine the basic syntactic structure of the clause, while thepredicate noun determines the semantic flavor of those arguments.” This characterization looks
correct for the English construction. In the Japanese case under consideration, however, it looks likeas many arguments add up in the matrix clause as undergo AT; e.g., the verb kokoromiru‘attempt.Pres’ used in (6) ordinarily only takes one agent and one theme.
4

The “?” status of (6c) is due to the fact that, roughly, clause-mate multiple accusatie NPs
generally cause degradation, which has nothing to do with the applicability of AT per se; see Saito andHoshi 2000 for full discussion.
5

Grimshaw & Mester (1988) only discussed cases involving suru ‘do’ as the matrix verb. I’magnostic here about the potential differences that the suru-construction might exhibit; see Matsumoto
1996a.

-273- 273 -

2008

(7)

2012









Hiroshi-wa sono ginkoo-kara(*-no) genkin-{o, *no} goodatu-suruHiroshi-TOP that bank-from-GEN cash-ACC GEN stealing-do.PRESkoto-o kokoromita.
C-ACC attempted

The VN-suru koto-ACC construction contains the same VN, but the VN is followed by themorphologically tensed verb suru ‘do.PRES’ and the nominalizing complementizer koto. The
case marking properties indicated in the above example show that the internal syntax of the
koto complement is fully verbal. This construction will be important when the‘configurational’ analysis of AT is tested against empirical data in section 7.6
As already seen above, what is peculiar about the VN-ACC construction is that in (6b,c), sono ginkoo-kara ‘from that bank’, case-wise, behaves as if it is a dependent of the matrix
verb (If it were a dependent of the noun, it would be marked with genitive in Japanese; cf.
(6a)). A surface phrase-structure like the one given in (8) encodes this case property,
abstracting away from the exact surface position for the matrix subject and other details.
(8)

VP
V’

NPnom
HiroshiPP

VNPaccV°attempt

the bank-from NPgen VN°
stealingmoney
It is important to note that AT does not apply freely. One consensus that researchers
have reached seems to be that the grammatical process in question must apply in the outsidein fashion that presupposes a certain thematic hierarchy (Grimshaw & Mester 1988;
Matsumoto 1996; Saito & Hoshi 1998, 2000; cf. Ishii 2009). Observe first that the severe
ungrammaticality of (9) suggests that the Theme of ‘stealing’ cannot undergo AT if the
Source does not.
(9) * Hiroshi-wa genkin-o [sono ginkoo-kara-no goodatu]-okokoromita
Hiroshi-TOP cash-ACC [that bank-from-GEN stealing-ACC attemptedThis way of describing the status of (9) is confirmed by the status of (6c). Although it is not a
perfect sentence (cf. footnote 4), it is still acceptable if both the internal arguments aretransferred. Based on these facts, Grimshaw & Mester conclude that AT applies to theargument structure of the embedded VN from outside in, respecting, say, a hierarchy like the6

Kuroda 1965 proposes a deletion transformation to derive a VN-ACC construction from its VNsuru koto-ACC counterpart.

-274- 274 -Notes on the ‘Argument Transfer’ Problem for Configurational -Theory (T. Fujii)

following (">" indicates "is more prominent than").7(10)

Agent > Source > Goal > Theme

To be more precise, an argument with -role  cannot undergo AT if there is an argumentwith -role  that has not undergone AT, where  >  holds in the thematic hierarchy.
In sum, two descriptive properties serve as boundary conditions on an adequate analysis
of AT.
(11)

a. AT applies optionally to (internal) arguments of the VN.
b. AT applies in an outside-in fashion to preserve the thematic hierarchy.

4.

A Covert Incorporation Analysis of AT

Saito & Hoshi 1998, 2000 propose an elegant covert incorporation analysis of AT.8,9 I
review the gist of the analysis below. According to the analysis, the effect of AT is achievedby covert (or LF) adjunction of the VN to the matrix V via head movement. In this analysis,
the surface structure that we have in (12) (=(8)) undergoes a covert transformation to yield
the structure given in (13).
(12)

VP
V’

NPnom
HiroshiPPthe bank-from

VNPaccV°attempt

NPgen VN°
stealing
cash

7

There is an issue as to where theme role comes in the hierarchy. See section 8.

8

Baker (1996:353ff) independently suggests an idea of the same sort.

9

Saito & Hoshi (2000) focus on the Light Verb Construction with suru, not the one exemplified by(6b/c) that involves a fully lexical matrix verb.

-275- 275 -

2008

2012

(13)



…
PP
the bank-from





V’
VNP

V°
tVN

NPgen

VN°
V°
stealing attempt

cash
There are two basic assumptions about -role assignment underlying the analysis: (i) that a role assigner assigns a -role to a phrase iff the former m-commands the latter (Locality); and(ii) that the m-command domain of X° is the domain that the first maximal projection that
dominates it (Definition of m-command). Once these assumptions are made, it follows that in(13) above, the VN is able to license the PP as an argument of it.
The covert incorporation analysis of AT successfully captures the two facts summarizedin (11): First, as Saito & Hoshi (2000) note, the very fact that AT is possible now follows
from the combination of two independently attested properties of syntax, i.e. head movement
and covert movement, without assuming a construction-specific rule. Second, the analysis
explains the ungrammaticality of (9) by appealing to the RUTHA-based thematic hierarchy.
(9), diagramed as in (14), can successfully be excluded by saying that the position for thetheme is higher than that of the source, given the hierarchy in (10). This account requires thatthe matrix clause have the theme -position. That is exactly what the covert incorporation
analysis claims.
(14)

*VP
NPnom
HiroshiV’
NPacc

VNPacc VN°+V°

cash PPgentVN

that bank-fromThis is not trivial at all because an alternative analyzing this transferred theme as being marked within the VNP would not be able to make recourse to the RUTAH or the thematichierarchy to exclude the structure of (14).
In sum, Saito & Hoshi’s (and Baker’s, as alluded to in footnote 8) head movement-based
view quite nicely satisfies the boundary conditions on an adequate analysis of AT (i.e., (11)aand b). The next two sections examine whether the covert incorporation analysis can beinstantiated under the C-approach. We begin by proposing a configurational analysis of thesimple VN-ACC construction as well as the VN-suru-koto-ACC construction.

-276- 276 -Notes on the ‘Argument Transfer’ Problem for Configurational -Theory (T. Fujii)

5.

A ‘Configurational’ Analysis of the Simple VN-ACC Construction

The key feature of the covert incorporation analysis of AT is head movement being able
to make an initially non-thematic position thematic in the course of derivation. What would aconfigurational treatment of VN-ACC complement constructions look like? In order to beable to answer this target question, we need first to consider a configurational analysis of themost basic patterns, the VN-suru koto construction [(7)] and the simple VN-ACC
construction [(6a)]. (6a-c) and (7) are repeated below.
(15)

a. Hiroshi-wa [VNP sono ginkoo-kara-no genkin-no goodatu]-o
Hiroshi-TOP
that bank-from-GEN cash-GEN stealing-ACC
kokoromita.
attempted‘Hiroshi attempted stealing of cash from the bank.’b. Hiroshi-wa
sono ginkoo-kara
Hiroshi-TOP that bank-fromkokoromita.
[VNP genkin-no goodatu]-ocash-GEN stealing-ACC attemptedkokoromita.
c. ? Hiroshi-wa sono ginkoo-kara genkin-o [VNP goodatu]-o
Hiroshi-TOP that bank-from cash-ACC
stealing-ACC attempted(16)

Hiroshi-wa sono ginkoo-kara genkin-o goodatu-suru-koto-o
Hiroshi-TOP that bank-from cash-ACC stealing-do.PRES-C-ACC
kokoromita.
attempted

One immediately conceivable way of dealing with (15a) is by borrowing a C-approach-based
analysis of a similar type of nominalization. Let us adopt some ideas from a configurational
analysis of English nominalizations suggested by Harley (2009) (see also Kratzer 1996,
Harley & Noyer 1997). The major assumptions required to analyze (16) are listed below.
(17)

a. A clause’s ability of licensing accusative case, ability of licensing agents andability of verbalizing roots are dissociated, rather than being treated as propertiesof one head, v. That is, Voice° introduces an agent, F° licenses accusative case,and v° verbalizes roots.
b. A series of overt head movements takes place (as indicated below), giving rise to
the surface form of the verb, goodatu su.
c. Spec,P is associated with goal/location/source and Compl,P with theme at leastin Japanese.

Then the embedded clause of the VN-suru koto construction exemplified by (16) can beanalyzed as involving a structure like (18) ( stands for a category-neutral root.)-277- 277 -2012

2008



(18)







VoiceP
Agent
FPvP

Voice°
F°(+ACC)P[v su]
’

SourceTheme[ goodatu]

One might point out that the positions for the source and the theme assumed in (17c) radicallydiffer from those proposed in the Hale & Keyser style analysis of English argument structure(see Hale & Keyser 1993, 2002; Harley 2011). For the moment, it suffices to note that theassumption in (17c) is largely compatible with the observed facts about Japanese argument
structure and that it clearly is a configurational analysis if not without a problem (see Takano
2008 for a comprehensive review). I come back to this issue in section 8.
Turn to the structure of the simple VN-ACC construction. The structure given in (18)
leads us to the hypothesis that the VN-ACC complement is diagramed as (19) (or perhaps its
version without the Voice projection and PRO, which are put in parentheses in the diagram.)
’

(19)

[ kokoromi]
attemptnP(VoiceP)[n ]([NP PRO])P
PP(-no)([Voice ])’NP(-no) [ goodatu]
The major assumptions underlying this structure are:(20)

a. VNP is reanalyzed as nP. The head n is a nominalizer (cf. (18)).
b. The verbalizer v and the case-assigning F are never present inside nP (cf. (18)).

-278- 278 -Notes on the ‘Argument Transfer’ Problem for Configurational -Theory (T. Fujii)c. Head movement from  to Voice and one from Voice to n apply to give thesurface form of the noun goodatu.
d. XP gets spelled out with genitive marking or in its adnominal form iff it isgoverned by n at the point of Spell-Out (see Matsumoto 1996b:130 for a similaridea).
e. Head movement gives rise to the effect of Baker’s (1988) Government
Transparency Corollary.
(20a-c) are largely in lines with Harley’s work. The assumptions in (20d-e) are made to deal
with the fact that arguments and modifiers that appear inside the (extended) projection of anominal at surface structure receive adnominal morphology.
Given these assumptions, and the assumption about theme and source in (17c), one cansuccessfully make it follow that the PP and the NP in (19) are configurationally assigned asource and a theme role, respectively. This way, a configurational analysis of the non-ATed
VNP complement construction can be instantiated.
6.

Incompatibility with the Covert Incorporation Analysis of AT

Having made available a ‘configurational’ analysis of the simple VN-ACC construction,
we are now in a position to ask the target question of this paper. How would it be possible for
the C-approach to account for the AT cases exemplified by (15b-c)? I demonstrate first thatthe covert incorporation analysis, if taken at face value, does not fit in with theconfigurational analysis of VN-ACC complements sketched in the previous subsection. Let
us take (15c) and consider its derivation. The base structure would be as in (21), and thecovert incorporation of the VN --- the syntactic object that is now reanalyzed as +n --- to thematrix verb gives rise to the configuration give in (22).10, 11

10

One might correctly wonder, regarding (22), whether the matrix verb root  has not moved up to ahigher position at the point of LF derivation where the covert movement of the VN applies. This may
imply that covert movement precedes overt movement, contrary to what’s expected under the Ymodel assumed in (20d). It seems, though, that the main idea can still be kept intact. Assume thatcovert n-to- movement is an operation at the nP cycle, and a series of overt movements resulting in
+v+F+Voice count as operations at the next higher cycle. Assume also that Spell-Out applies cycle
by cycle. That enables us to continue a Y-model derivation within each cycle.

11

As was alluded to when (19) is presented, the VoiceP in the VNP may be absent from VN-ACC
complements. Indeed, it is omitted in (21). This is to avoid being committed to the issue of whether
PRO, an obligatorily controlled argument, undergoes AT. For the current purposes, one can assume,along the lines proposed by Chierchia (1984), Wurmbrand (2001), among others, that a controlled
complement may lack a subject position.

-279- 279 -2012

2008

(21)









VoiceP
Agent
FP
vP

Voice
F

P

v

PP
’
bank-from
NP
cash

’
nP

P

[ kokoromi]n[ goodatu]
(22)

P
PP
’
bank-from
NP
cash
nP
P
t

’

tn

n
[ goodatu][ kokoromi]nRecall that in (17c), we assumed that Spec,P is associated with goal/location/source andCompl,P with theme in order to get the configurational analysis of the construction off theground. Now this assumption, obviously, prevents the ATed arguments from receiving thecorrect interpretations; in (22), the PP is not in the specifier of [ goodatu], nor is the NP in
the complement of it. (See Kuroda 2003 for a solution to this problem, which proposesreconstructing a configurational structure inside the lower P.)
This section has demonstrated (i) that the VN-suru koto-ACC construction can be dealt
with under the C-approach; (ii) that the VN-ACC construction without AT also can fall underit; and (iii) that the ‘covert incorporation’ solution to the AT problem is not compatible with
the C-approach to argument structure. In the next section, we consider a ‘configurational’
way out of the problem, building on Matsumoto (1996b).

-280- 280 -Notes on the ‘Argument Transfer’ Problem for Configurational -Theory (T. Fujii)

7.

Discussion

One way of accounting for AT under the C-approach is by proposing that transferredarguments result from non-case-driven A-movement from within the VN-ACC clause into thematrix domain. Under the structural analysis of the construction proposed above, themovement in question will be movement out of the nP to the matrix P. The diagram in (23)presents how the source PP is transferred to the matrix domain in examples like (15b).
(23)

VoiceP
Agent
FP
vP

F

P

v
’

PP
bank-from
nP
P
tPP

Voice

[ kokoromi]
attemptn’NP(-no)[ goodatu]
stealing

As for the construction exemplified by (15c), where the source and the theme are transferred,
it can be handled by assuming that they would move into multiple specifiers as in (24).
(24)… [P PPSource [’ NPTheme [’ [nP tSource tTheme goodatu] kokoromi ]]Note also that the movement in question can be non-case-driven, because, for example, thesource PP receives no case from the matrix verb. A moved element, like the transferred themein (23), can be assigned case by the matrix verb but it does not always have to be. The
following assumptions seem to enable us to achieve the desired results.
(25)

a. The matrix verb (°) optionally gains an ‘EPP’ feature, which derives overt Amovement to a specifier of the head bearing it, essentially along the lines
presented in Chomsky 2008, Lasnik 2003.

-281- 281 -

2008

2012







b. The EPP feature in question may derive movement more than one time to create
multiple specifiers (Ura 1994). When multiple movements are triggered, multiple
specifiers are created in a ‘Tacking in’ fashion proposed in Richards (2001),
Hiraiwa (2001). Thus, when the two internal arguments move, the ‘base’ word
order is preserved.
c. nP does not count as an intervener for movement of the PP and the NP. Moregenerally, when H° triggers movement, the complement of H° does not count as
an intervener for minimality purposes (Funakoshi 2012).
It should be noted that the movement in (23) cannot be scrambling. If it were, the effect of thethematic hierarchy (cf. (9), repeated as (26)) would not be captured, given that scrambling
does not obey minimality.
(26) * Hiroshi-wa genkin-o [sono ginkoo-kara-no
Hiroshi-TOP cash-ACC [that bank-from-GEN

goodatu]-okokoromita
stealing-ACC attempted

So this ‘EPP-driven movement’ analysis proposed above is not only compatible with the Capproach but also successfully captures the core effects of AT.
Now a question that arises is, is there any independent empirical argument that this
‘EPP-driven movement’ analysis is preferred over the covert incorporation analysis? In what
follows, I first provide one putative argument in favor of the EPP-driven movement analysis,
which is essentially one I reconstruct from Matsumoto’s (1996b) observations (see also
Kuroda 2003). And then I show that this particular argument unfortunately turns out to lead toa wrong consequence.
The form of the argument for the EPP-driven movement analysis is as follows. Supposethat displacement of a complement dependent of the sort proposed in (23) is observed insome other construction. Suppose furthermore that the second construction cannot be
accounted for in terms of covert incorporation. Then, all the facts would follow without
appealing to the covert incorporation analysis. Hence the EPP-driven movement analysis ispreferred.
An actual empirical argument is based on a clause-mate condition on NPI licensing.
First, the contrast in (27) is an illustration of the standard generalization that a sika-marked
phrase, being an NPI, requires a clause-mate negation at surface structure. The PP-sika in theembedded clause cannot be licensed by the matrix negation but can be by the embedded
negation.
(27)

a. *Yoko-wa [Hiroshi-ga
Yoko-TOP [Hiroshi-NOM
goodatu-surukoto]-ostealing-do.PRES C-ACC

sono ginkoo-kara-sika genkin-othat bank-from-SIKA cash-ACC
soozoosi-nakat-ta.
imagine-NEG-PAST-282- 282 -Notes on the ‘Argument Transfer’ Problem for Configurational -Theory (T. Fujii)

b. Yoko-wa [doroboo-ga
sono
Yoko-TOP [robber-NOM that
goodatu-si-naikoto]-ostealing-do-NEG.PRES C-ACC

ginkoo-kara-sika genkin-obank-from-SIKA cash-ACC
soozoosita.
imagined‘Yoko imagined that robbers would steal cash only from that bank.’
As Matsumoto notes, it has been observed that a standard non-finite OC complement exhibitsa clause-union effect: a dependent of the complement clause behaves as if it is in the matrix
clause (Saito 1985, 1996; Nemoto 1993; Murasugi & Saito 1995). In (28a), the PP-sika iseasily licensed by the matrix negation (Not surprisingly, when transferred elements are NPIs,
they are licensed by the matrix negation, as in (28b)).
(28)

a. Hiroshi-wa
sono ginkoo-kara-sika genkin-o goodatu-suru-koto-o
Hiroshi-TOP that bank-from-SIKA cash-ACC stealing-do.PRES-C-ACC
kokorominakatta.
did.not.attempt‘Hiroshi attempted to steal cash only from that bank.’b. Hiroshi-wa
sono ginkoo-kara-sika [VNP genkin-no goodatu]-o
Hiroshi-TOP that bank-from-SIKA
cash-GEN stealing-ACC
kokoromi-nakat-ta.
attempt-NEG-PAST

Matsumoto’s observation suggests that EPP-driven movement is independently needed toaccount for the clause-mate effect and hence the covert incorporation can be dispensed with.
This way, an argument in favor of the EPP-driven movement analysis can be made.
However, it turns out that the unification of AT and the ill-understood clause-union
effect under OC gains little empirical support. To see how, we introduce another instance ofthe clause-union effect, which has to do with the clause-mate condition on multiple clefting.
In (29a), the matrix subject and the source PP are not in the same clause and they resist
multiple clefting. As Takano (2010) observes, the effect goes away when the complement
subject is OCed, as in (29b). (29c) shows that in the VN-ACC construction as well, atransferred element behaves like a clause mate of the matrix subject. This is expected since
OC is involved (Foci are underscored in translations in (29)).
(29)

a. *[e1 [doroboo-ga e2 genkin-o goodatu-suru-koto]-o soozoosita-no]-wa[robber-NOM
cash-ACC stealing-do-C-ACC
imagined-C-TOP
Hiroshi-ga1
sono ginkoo-kara2 da.
Hiroshi-NOM that bank-from
COP‘Hiroshi imagined the robbers would steal cash from that bank.’-283- 283 -

2008

2012







b. [e1 e2 genkin-o goodatu-suru koto-o kokoromita-no]-wa
cash-ACC stealing-do C-ACC attempted-C-TOP
sono ginkoo-kara2 da.
Hiroshi-ga1
Hiroshi-NOM that bank-from
COP‘Hiroshi attempted to steal cash from that bank.’
kokoromita-no]-wa
c. [e1 e2 [VNP genkin-no goodatu]-ocash-GEN stealing-ACC attempted-C-TOP
Hiroshi-ga1
sono ginkoo-kara2 da.
Hiroshi-NOM that bank-from
COP
With this much background, consider a pair of examples like (30a,b). In (30a), thesource PP must be in the embedded CP because of the sika-Neg association within the clause.
It is predicted then that the theme NP genkin ‘cash’ cannot be displaced to the matrix clausein this environment, because the source PP would have to undergo EPP-driven movement if
the theme NP does, obeying minimality (cf. the ungrammaticality of (26)). Now theprediction for multiple clefting applying to (30a) is that the theme NP would not undergoclefting with the matrix agent; i.e. that (30b) be ungrammatical. But the example isacceptable.12(30)

a. Hiroshi-wa
sono ginkoo-kara-sika genkin-o
Hiroshi-TOP that bank-from-SIKA cash-ACC
goodatu-si-nai-koto-oyakusokusita.
stealing-do-NEG.PRES-C-ACC promised‘Hiroshi promised to steal cash only from that bank.’b. [e1 sono ginkoo-kara-sika e2 goodatu-si-nai-koto-othat bank-from-SIKA
stealing-do-NEG.PRES-C-ACC
yakusokusita]-no-wa Hiroshi-ga1
genkin-o2 dapromised-C-TOP
Hiroshi-NOM cash-ACC COP‘Hiroshi promised to steal cash only from that bank.’

Based on these considerations, I conclude that AT and the clause-union effect under OC
should not be unified. That means that we could not extend the EPP-driven movement
analysis of AT to the clause-union effect. The latter phenomenon is just left unexplained
under both analyses. The EPP-driven movement analysis of AT may be correct, but the12

The VN-ACC counterpart of (30b) is no good. This, however, does not tell us anything because
clefting fails to apply to genitive-marked elements to begin with.
(i) * [Hiroshi-ga sono ginkoo-kara [VNP ei goodatu]-o kokoromita-no]-wa genkin-no da
cash-GEN
The ungrammaticality of (i) is expected if the condition on genitive marking in (20d) is correct.

-284- 284 -Notes on the ‘Argument Transfer’ Problem for Configurational -Theory (T. Fujii)

argument for it over the incorporation analysis is gone.
In sum, it is possible to instantiate a ‘configurational’ analysis of AT by proposing that
AT is non-case-driven A-movement out of the VNP. An initial attempt to give it independent
support, however, does not seem to succeed at least when taken at a face value.
8.

Conclusions

I have argued that the Saito & Hoshi style account of AT is successful crucially because
it is a variant of the featural approach to argument structure. I develop a configurational
account of the same phenomenon though I have not been able to find independent support for
it at this point.
One final point. One general conceptual merit of the C-approach over the F-approach isthat the former arguably derives the effect of the thematic hierarchy while the latter directlyencodes it into the system as a principle. This conceptual argument may be in favor of theconfigurational analysis of AT over the covert incorporation analysis. Quite ironically,
however, the standard treatment of theme with respect to other internal arguments under the
C-approach (Hale & Keyser 1993, 2002; Baker 1997) is exactly opposite to the one we needto assume in accounting for the Japanese data. Baker (1997:123) remarks:… if [the C-approach, T.F.] is correct, then the agent has prominence over the theme
not by the extrinsic stipulation of some kind of thematic hierarchy, but by semantic
compositionality: the agent is the argument of one predicate, the theme is theargument of another predicate, and the second predicate is an argument of the first.
As Baker notes (p.106), the theme needs to be lower than other internal arguments inaccounting for the thematic hierarchy effect (cf. (9)). The configurational analysis presented
in section 7 remains to be fully worked out in this respect, as well.

References
Baker, M. (1988) Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing, The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Baker, M. (1997) “Thematic roles and syntactic structure.” In L. Haegeman ed., Elements of grammar,
73–137. Kluwer, Dordorecht.
Chierchia, G. (1984) Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives and gerunds, Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The minimalist program, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, N. (2000) “Minimalist inquiries: the framework.” In R. Martin, et al. eds., Step by step:
Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 89–
155.
Chomsky, N. (2008) “On phrases.” In R. Freidin, et al. eds., Foundational issues in linguistic theory:
Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 133–166.

-285- 285 -

2008

2012









Funakoshi, K. (2012) “On headless XP-movement/ellipsis,” Linguistic Inquiry 43, 519–562.
Grimshaw, J. (1990) Argument structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Grimshaw, J. & A. Mester (1988) “Light verbs and -marking,” Linguistic Inquiry 19, 205–232.
Hale, K. & S. J. Keyser (1993) “Argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations.”
In K. Hale and S.J. Keyser eds., The view from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in honorof Sylvain Bromberger, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 53–109.
Hale, K. & S. J. Keyser (2002) Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Harley, H. (2009) “The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP.” In A. Giannakidou and
M. Rathert eds., Quantification, definiteness, and nominalization, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 321–343.
Harley, H. (2011) “A minimalist approach to argument structure.” In C. Boeckx ed., The Oxford
handbook of linguistic minimalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 427–448.
Harley, H. & R. Noyer (1997) “Mixed nominalizations, short verb movement and object shift in
English.” In K. Kusumoto and P. Tamanji eds., Proceedings of NELS 28, University of
Massachusetts, GLSA, Amherst, 143–157.
Hiraiwa, K. (2001) “Multiple Agree and the Defective Intervention Constraint in Japanese.” In O.
Matushansky ed., MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40. HUMIT 2000., MITWPL,
Cambridge, Mass., 67–80.
Hornstein, N. (1999) “Movement and control,” Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69–96.
Hoshi, H. (2002a) “Domains for Theta Marking,” Proceedings of the 2002 Linguistics Society of
Korea International Summer Conference, Kyung Hee University, 59–70.
Hoshi, H. (2002b) “(Non)configurational theta marking,” paper read at Linguistics and Phonetics
2002, Charles University and Meikai University.
Ishii, T. (2009) “Non-simultaneous transfer, case domain fusion and the light verb construction.” In R.
Shibagaki and R. Vermeulen eds., Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Altaic Formal
Linguistics (WAFL 5), MITWPL, Cambridge, Mass., 181–195.
Jackendoff, R. (1990) “On Larson’s treatment of the double object construction,” Linguistic Inquiry
21, 427–456.
Kratzer, A. (1996) “Severing the external argument from its verb.” In J. Rooryck and L. Zaring eds.,
Phrase structure and the lexicon, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 109–137.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965) Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language, Ph.D. dissertation,MIT.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (2003) “Complex predicates and predicate raising,” Lingua 113, 447–480.
Larson, R. (1988) “On the double object construction,” Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–391.
Larson, R. (1990) “Double object revisited: Reply to Jackendoff,” Linguistic Inquiry 21, 589–632.
Lasnik, H. (2003) Minimalist investigations in linguistic theory, Routledge, London/New York.
Matsumoto, Y. (1996a) Complex predicates in Japanese: A syntactic and semantic study of the notion‘Word’, CSLI and Kuroshio, Stanford and Tokyo.
Matsumoto, Y. (1996b) “A syntactic account of light verb phenomena in Japanese,” Journal of East
Asian Linguistics 5, 107-149.
Murasugi, K. & M. Saito (1995) “Adjunction and cyclicity.” In R. Aronovich, et al. eds., WCCFL 13,
CSLI, Stanford, 302–317.
Nemoto, N. (1993) Chains and Case positions: A study from scrambling in Japanese, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Richards, N. (2001) Movement in language, Oxford University Press, Oxford/ New York.
Saito, M. (1985) Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications, Ph.D. dissertation,MIT.

-286- 286 -Notes on the ‘Argument Transfer’ Problem for Configurational -Theory (T. Fujii)

Saito, M. (1996) “Barriers for A-adjunction.” In N. Akatsuka, et al. eds., Japanese/Korean Linguistics
5, CSLI, Stanford, 1–36.
Saito, M. & H. Hoshi (1998) “Control in complex predicates.” In Tsukuba daigaku, Tôzai gengo
bunka no ruikeiron (University of Tsukuba, Typological investigations of languages andcultures of the East and West), University of Tsukuba, 15–46.
Saito, M. & H. Hoshi (2000) “The Japanese light verb construction and the minimalist program.” In R.
Martin, et al. eds., Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 261–295.
Takano, Y. (2008) “Ditransitive constructions.” In S. Miyagawa and M. Saito eds., The Oxford
handbook of Japanese linguistics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 423–455.
Takano, Y. (2010) “Scrambling and control,” Linguistic Inquiry 41, 83–110.
Ura, H. (1994) Varieties of raising and the feature-based bare phrase structure theory, MITWPL,
Cambridge, Mass.
Wurmbrand, S. (2001) Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure, Mouton de Gruyter,
Berlin/New York.

-287- 287 -CASE, TENSE, AND SUBJECT RAISING IN JAPANESE *Hideki Kishimoto
Kobe University

1.

Introduction

One long-standing issue in Japanese generative grammar concerns the question of where
subjects are located in clause structure. Since the introduction of the predicate-internal subject
hypothesis (see Koopman and Sportiche 1991, Sportiche 1988, Fukui 1986, Kitagawa 1986,
Kuroda 1988, McCloskey 1996, 1997), this issue has figured prominently. This is precisely
because the predicate-internal subject hypothesis makes two subject positions available—one
is a vP-internal position, where a subject receives its theta role from the verb, and the other,
Spec-TP, which is the landing site of a subject (when it undergoes subject raising).
Theoretically subjects can appear in either Spec-vP or Spec-TP, but in Japanese, nogeneral consensus has been reached as to which position subjects should occupy. Some
researchers, such as Fukui (1986, 1995) and Kuroda (1988), hold that subjects appear in vPinternal position without subject raising.
(1)[TP SUBJ[vP SUBJ [VP

V ] v] T]

On the other hand, it is held by other researchers, such as Miyagawa (1989a, 1989b) andKishimoto (2001), that subjects are raised to Spec-TP by virtue of the EPP requirement
imposed on T.
(2)[TP SUBJ [vP SUBJ

[VP

V ] v] T]

The discussion of the structural position of subjects is often confined to cases involving
nominative subjects, but more recently, a different claim has been advanced in Kishimoto(2012) to the effect that the structural position that subjects occupy varies depending on theirmarking; that is, nominative subjects are raised to Spec-TP, whereas source subjects marked
with ablative case—the oblique kara ‘from’—remain within vP (cf. Ueda 2003).
In Japanese, there is at least one way of measuring whether or not a subject undergoes
raising to Spec-TP. In this paper, it is shown that one species of raising construction where
the main predicate is combined with the aspectual verb iru ‘be’ allows us to confirm the* Part of the material in this paper was presented at 2nd York Workshop on East Asian Syntax(August, 2012). I would like to thank Mamoru Saito, Keiko Murasugi, Hidekazu Tanaka, Mika Kizu,
Peter Sells, Ryosuke Shibagaki, John Whitman, and the audience at the workshop for comments anddiscussions. Needless to say, the author is solely responsible for any remaining errors andinadequacies.

-289-

2008

2012







constituent position of subjects.
In the raising construction formed with the aspectual verb iru, a negator may either
precede or follow the aspectual verb. As I will discuss at length below, when the negator
precedes the aspectual verb, negative scope does not extend over the matrix TP, but is limited
to the embedded TP: the limited extent of negative scope allows us to assess whether asubject is raised to Spec-TP or not. A close inspection of the data reveals that the possibilityof subject raising is determined by the property of tense. It is suggested that when T bears acase feature to license a nominative argument, it carries an EPP feature, and hence, subject
raising is instantiated.
The discussion proceeds as follows. In section 2, I first discuss the structure of the
aspectual construction. It is shown then that crucial evidence that allows us to diagnose thepresence or absence of subject raising can be drawn from the aspectual construction. In
section 3, I argue that when tense bears a case feature to value the case feature of anominative argument, the EPP requirement is imposed on the clause. In section 4, thenominative-case constraint is seen to emerge when tense has an uninterpretable case feature.
A conclusion is presented in section 5.
2.

Subject Raising in the Aspectual Construction

The grammatical requirement for filling Spec-TP—the EPP requirement—motivates theraising of subjects to TP from the base-generated position within vP. Since the EPP wasformulated by Chomsky (1982), a number of different theoretical implementations have been
proposed (see Landau 2007), but it is commonly held that whether or not subject raising toSpec-TP takes place is determined by the property of T.1
The EPP requirement is often taken to work in tandem with, or closely to, somegrammatical features such as case and agreement. Researchers such as Bokovi (2002) andMartin (1999) propose that the EPP should be motivated by case. In contrast, Kuroda (1988),
Pesetsky and Torrego (2001), and Miyagawa (2010) provide a view to the effect thatagreement dictates the EPP requirement, and hence, the possibility of subject raising.2 The
non-raising view of subjects in Japanese is often motivated by the fact that the language lacks
agreement, as discussed by Fukui (1986, 1995) and Kuroda (1988). For Kuroda (1988), for
1

There are a number of different grammatical views for the EPP: Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou(1988) claim that the EPP holds universally, and this requirement could be met via XP or X0
movement; McCloskey (1996) argues that the EPP holds in some languages, but not in others, or that
languages may differ in the specifier requirement on T. While I assume that the EPP is a grammaticalrequirement (imposed on T), some proposals attempt to reduce the EPP requirement to a phonologicalconstraint, stating that T needs its specifier (subject) for phonological reasons (e.g. Holmberg 2000).
There are also views taking this requirement to be semantic in nature (see, e.g., Rothstein 2001).
2

In Miyagawa’s analysis, topic/focus features are construed as counterparts of agreement inlanguages like Japanese.

-290- 290 -Case, Tense, and Subject Raising in Japanese (H. Kishimoto)instance, subjects remain in vP-internal position, due to the absence of agreement. If the EPP
works in tandem with agreement, this view might be plausible. Nevertheless, as I will discuss
below, there is good reason to believe that in Japanese, the EPP requirement is conditioned bycase rather than agreement.
In the following discussion, I will argue that, at least in Japanese, the EPP is correlatedwith the question of whether T licenses the most prominent structural case of the clause—i.e.
nominative case. Data from the subject-raising construction with the aspectual verb iru
suggest that the specifier requirement (i.e. the EPP requirement) of T is derived when tense
carries an uninterpretable case feature to value the case feature of a nominative argument.
2.1. The Raising Constructions
Prior to going into the illustration of how subject raising is implemented in Japanese, let
us discuss some notable properties of the aspectual construction (3) where the main verb is
combined with the aspectual verb iru ‘be’, which plays a key role in the discussion of subject
raising.
(3)

John-gahon-oJohn-Nom book-Acc

yon-deread

ir-u.
be-Pres‘John is reading the book.’
First, in the aspectual construction headed by the aspectual verb iru ‘be’, a negator nai ‘not’
can appear in two different syntactic positions. As shown in (4), nai can either precede orfollow the aspectual verb (but must always follow the main verb).
(4)a. John-ga
John-Nom

hon-oyon-debook-Acc readi-na-i.
be-Neg-Pres‘John is not reading the book.’b. John-ga
John-Nomhon-obook-Acc

V-BE-NOT

yoma-nai-deread-Neg‘John is not reading the book.’

ir-u.
be-Pres
V-NEG-BEThe aspectual verb iru occurring with the main verb expresses an aspectual meaning, andconstructs a raising construction. This can be confirmed by restoring to two heuristics
standardly used for distinguishing raising from control structures.
To be concrete, the fact that inanimate subjects are allowed, as well as the fact thatclausal idioms can be embedded with no loss of their idiomatic meanings, confirms that theconstruction formed with the aspectual verb iru ‘be’ has a raising structure. The examples in(5) represent a case where the negator occurs to the right of the main verb.

-291- 291 -

2008

(5)

2012







a. Sora-ga mada hare-te i-na-i.
sky-Nom still
clear
be-Pres‘The sky is not clearing yet.’b. Kono mise-de-wa madathisshop-at-Top still(Inanimate subject)kankodori-ga
cuckoo-Nom

nai-te i-na-i.
sing be-Neg-Pres‘There are still almost no customers shopping at this shop.’(Clausal idiom)

The same fact that is observed for (5) obtains in cases where the negator follows the aspectual
verb, as in (6).
(6)

a. Sora-ga mada hare-nai-de i-ru.
sky-Nom stillclear-Neg
be-Pres‘The sky has not cleared yet.’b. Kono mise-de-wa
thisshop-at-Top(Inanimate subject)mada kankodori-ga naka-nai-de i-ru.
stillcuckoo-Nom sing-Neg
be-Pres‘There are still almost no customers shopping at this shop.’(Clausal idiom)

The data illustrate that the aspectual verb iru does not impose any selectional restriction on
the subject, which is characteristic of raising verbs, and thus, any type of subject is allowed in
the aspectual construction as long as it satisfies the sectional requirement of the main verb.
This pattern of distribution is not found in control constructions. The aspectual verb oku‘put’ selects a te-clause as its complement, just like the aspectual verb iru ‘be’. Nevertheless,the verb oku takes a control complement. This is readily confirmed by the fact that neither
inanimate subjects nor clausal idioms can be embedded under oku, as shown in (7).
(7)

a. *Sora-ga hare-tesky-Nom clear

oka-nakat-ta.
put-Neg-Past‘The sky was not cleared.’(Inanimate subject)b. * Kono mise-de-wa kankodori-ga nai-te
thisshop-at-Top cuckoo-Nom singoka-nakat-ta.
put-Neg-Past‘There were almost no customers shopping at this shop.’(Clausal idiom)

The data (5) through (7) suggest therefore that the aspectual construction where the verb iru isused should have a raising structure.3 The variant of the aspectual construction in (4b), where3

To be more precise, the raising construction is formed when the subject is raised to Spec-TP. If it
does not undergo raising, the resulting structure only involves embedding. As I will discuss below, thesubject is moved to Spec-TP when T bears a feature [+Nom] to value the case feature of a nominativeargument. In such a case, the aspectual construction involves raising rather than control. Japanese has-292- 292 -Case, Tense, and Subject Raising in Japanese (H. Kishimoto)nai precedes the aspectual verb iru, has an agentive implication semantically, on the basis ofwhich Takezawa (2004) argues that it should have a control structure. Nevertheless, thepattern of distribution observed above suggests that (4b), as well as (4a), should be counted asa raising construction.
2.2. Clause Structure and Negative Scope
In this section, I first delineate some assumptions about clause structure in Japanese. I
postulate that Japanese has a clause structure like (8b), where a tense head -ru or -ta occupies
the Fin-head position of FinP—projected in a higher position than TP.
(8)a. [FinP

[TP

SUBJ

[vP

…..

V-v] -ru/-ta] Fin]b. [FinP

[TP

SUBJ

[vP

…..

V-v] -ru/-ta] -ru/-ta ]I assume that in Japanese, a tense element is merged in the T-head position, as in (8a), but ishead-raised to Fin, as in (8b), for the purpose of identifying the finiteness of the clause (seeRizzi 1997, Radford 2009). As a consequence of head raising, which places tense in the Finhead position, the structure where tense takes scope over TP is created in overt syntax.
In this connection, note that in Romance and Germanic languages, complementizers
often have the morphological manifestation of finiteness/infiniteness, suggesting that FinP is
associated with the C-system, as discussed by Rizzi (1977). This applies to English as well,since the finiteness of an embedded clause is signalled by the type of complementizer.
Rizzi (1997) suggests that the two sorts of complementizers di and che in Italian should
occupy distinct head positions, on the basis of the facts given in (9) and (10).
(9)

a. Credo che il tuo libro, loro lo apprezzerebbero molto.
‘I believe that your book, they would appreciate it a lot.’b. * Credo, il tuo libro, che loro lo apprezzerebbero molto.
‘I believe, your book, that they would appreciate it a lot.’(10)

Rizzi (1997:218)

a. *Credo di il tuo libro, apprezzarlo molto.
‘I believe ‘of’ your book, to appreciate it a lot.’b. Credo, il tuo libro, di apprezzarlo molto.
‘I believe, your book, ‘of’ to appreciate it a lot.’Rizzi (1997: 218)

The complementizer di is construed as the non-finite counterpart of the finite complementizer
a number of auxiliary verbs taking te-complements. These verbs are divided into two classes; whileverbs like kuru ‘come’ and iku ‘go’ take raising structures, verbs like ageru ‘give’ and miru ‘try’ takecontrol structures.

-293- 293 -

2008

2012







che. On the basis of the fact that che precedes, and di follows, a left-dislocated phrase
appearing in TopP in Italian, as in (9) and (10), Rizzi claims that che appears in the head
position of ForceP and di the head position of FinP.
The fact regarding the complementizers that and for in English is comparable to what isobserved for the two complementizers che ‘that’ and di ‘of’ in Italian. Rizzi (1997) in factargues that in English, the two types of complementizers that and for occur in distinct head
positions above TP, in the light of the contrast observed in (11) and (12).
(11)

a. He is anxious that John will leave tomorrow.
b. He is anxious that, tomorrow, John will leave.

(12)

Radford (2009: 335)

a. He is anxious for John to leave tomorrow.
b. * He is anxious for, tomorrow, John to leave.

Radford (2009: 335)

The finite complementizer that fills in the head position of ForceP, so that a topic
accommodated in TopP can follow it.4 This ordering is impossible with for, because it occurs
in the head position of FinP. The data suggest that in English (and Italian), FinP is associatedwith a non-finite complementizer rather than tense itself.
In Japanese, by contrast, no distinction between finite versus non-finite clauses is drawn
by the kind of complementizer, i.e. finiteness is not signalled by a complementizer
morphologically, and tense can be distinguished only by way of its morphology. In the lightof this fact, I surmise that in Japanese, unlike English/Italian, the T-head is associated withfiniteness, and that since T is located below Fin, head raising of tense to Fin is instantiated.
Under the view held here, FinP plays a different role in English/Italian and Japanese.
Let us now turn to the question of how negative scope is determined. It is well-observedthat in Japanese, the scope of negation extends over TP in a simple clause (see Kato 1985,
and many others), so that no subject-object asymmetry is observed in licensing NPIs, as
illustrated in (13).
(13)

a. John-ga
hon-sikaJohn-Nom book-onlyyoma-na-i.
read-Neg-Pres‘John reads only books.’

4(i)

In Rizzi’s (1997) analysis, the C-system is comprised of several distinct projections, as in (i).
Force … (Topic)…(Focus)… Fin

The crucial point is that ForceP is projected above the Topic-Focus field, but FinP is located below it,so that a topic appearing in the left periphery is ordered differently, depending on what type ofcomplementizer appears in the clause.

-294- 294 -Case, Tense, and Subject Raising in Japanese (H. Kishimoto)b. John-sika
John-only

hon-o
yoma-na-i.
book-Acc read-Neg-Pres‘Only John reads books.’
The NPI sika (attached to DP/PP) is licensed by falling under the scope of negation (seeAoyagi and Ishii 1994). In (13), both subject and object NPIs are licensed, on the grounds
that the scope of nai extends over the entire clause. Needless to say, DP/PP-sika is notlicensed if it does not appear in the negative context.
(14)

hon-sika
yom-u.
a. *John-ga
John-Nom book-only read-Pres‘John reads only books.’
yom-u.
b. * John-sika hon-oJohn-only book-Acc read-Pres‘Only John reads books.’
naka-nakat-ta to] it-ta.
c. *John-sika [Mary-ga
John-only Mary-Nom cry-Neg-Past that say-Past‘Only John said that Mary did not cry.’In both (14a) and (14b), the NPI sika is not licensed due to the absence of a negator, i.e.
negative scope is not projected which can license an NPI. In (14c), the NPI sika appears in thematrix clause, but the negator is located in the embedded clause. Thus, (14c) is ruled out on
the grounds that the NPI falls outside the scope domain of the negator.
Negative scope can be assumed to be fixed structurally. The clause-wide scope ofnegation can be attributed to the presence of Neg-raising, which raises a Neg-head to T (andfurther to Fin), as depicted in (15).
(15)[FinP [TP SUBJ [NegP [vP [VP OBJ V] v] Neg] Neg-T] Neg-T-Fin]

In Japanese, T attracts a Neg-head to form a complex head, and further, since the finiteness ofT needs to be licensed via head-raising to Fin, the entire head complex including Neg occurs
in the Fin-head position. The complex head has TP in its c-commanding domain, and thescope of negation extends over TP accordingly.
In English, the negator not takes narrower scope, and a subject-object asymmetry obtains
with regard to NPI licensing, as exemplified in (16).
(16)

a. John did not read anything.
b. * Anyone did not read the book.

-295- 295 -

2008

2012







This shows that the extent of negative scope differs between Japanese and English. 5
Arguably, no Neg-raising takes place in English.
(17)[FinP [TP SUBJ T [NegP not [vP v-V [VP OBJ]]]]]In English, the negator resides in NegP, as illustrated in (16), and as such, negative scope
does not extend over TP.
Japanese is similar to English, in that a negator looks like occupying a lower position
than tense (at least morphologically). Nevertheless, Japanese, unlike English, takes clausewide negative scope. In Japanese, T is combined with Neg to form a complex head, and thiscomplex head is raised to Fin, with the result that Neg takes scope over TP.6 TP falls under
the scope of nai, as a result of head raising, so the negative nai can license both subject andobject (even if the subject undergoes raising to the clause-subject position of Spec-TP).
The existence of Neg-raising in Japanese, which leads to the formation of a complex
head, is evidenced by (18).
hasit-te(18) * John-ga
John-Nom run

i-naku-mo ar-u.
be-Neg-also be-Pres‘John is also not running.’
The example in (18) illustrates that the negative nai resists the suffixation of an adverbial
particle on its right. As discussed by Kishimoto (2007, 2008), this is indicative of the fact thatnai and the tense form a complex head syntactically.
When tense is separated from the adjectivally-inflecting negator by virtue of an emphatic
particle, the supportive verb aru ‘be’ is inserted to the left of the stranded tense, in the same
way that the supportive verb aru is inserted when tense is separated from its host adjective, asin (19).
5

In English, the negator not takes scope over subjects (located in Spec-TP) if it is raised to a higher
position. Thus, an asymmetry in NPI interpretation obtains in the sentences in (i).
(i)

a.

What did anyone not buy?

b.

What didn’t anyone buy?

In (ia), anyone has a free-choice interpretation, and does not serve as an NPI. This is due to the factthat the subject is located in the position which falls outside the scope of not. In (ib), in contrast,
anyone can serve as an NPI. The difference accrues from the fact in (ia), but not in (ib), not is locatedin a position where its scope extends over the subject.
6

The peculiarity of negation in Japanese lies in the fact that the sentential negator nai is combinedwith tense to form a complex head. In English, and also in other European languages, sentential
negators, even if they are realized as heads, function as elements independent of tense, and normally
do not interact with it (see Haegeman 1995, Zanuttini 1997, and others).

-296- 296 -Case, Tense, and Subject Raising in Japanese (H. Kishimoto)(19)

John-wa
John-Topkanasiku-mo
sad-also

ar-u.
be-Pres‘John is also sad.’
In (18), in opposition to (19), the predicative sequence is not well-formed even with thismorphological adjustment, i.e., (18) is not acceptable even if an appropriate supportive verb
is inserted to the left of the stranded tense, which suggests that the negative nai be raised andadjoined to the tense to form a complex head syntactically.
This analysis is based on the assumption that a complex head cannot comprise a particle
inside even if there is a morphological boundary. This view gains support from the examplesin (20).
(20)

ryokooa. *kaigai-mooverseas-also travel‘overseas as well travel’

b. kaigai-ryokoo-mo
overseas-travel-also‘overseas travel as well’

The entire sequence of a compound noun like kaigai ryokoo ‘overseas travel’ forms acomplex head, despite the fact that it consists of two elements kaigai ‘overseas’ and ryokoo‘travel’ morphologically. With this compound noun, a particle can be added to the right of theentire complex, as in (20b), but cannot intervene between the morphological boundary of thetwo elements, as in (20a). Since an adverbial particle cannot be inserted unless there is a
syntactic break, it is reasonable to state that the impossibility of inserting a particle to theright of the negative nai in (18) gives us a sign that the head nai is raised to a higher head toderive a complex head.
While a particle is prevented from occurring to the right of a negator, as in (18), a
particle can be added to the right of the aspectual verb iru.
(21)

John-ga
John-Nom

hasit-te i-mo
si-na-i.
runbe-also do-Neg-Pres‘John is also not running.’
When a bound element is separated from the verb, as in (21), the supportive verb suru ‘do’ isused for morphological support. The acceptability of (21) shows that the aspectual verb does
not form a syntactically tight unit with a higher predicative head, i.e. no head raising takes
place.
Given the facts noted above, the verbal sequences in (22) can be posited for the twovariants of the aspectual construction; (22a) represents a case where the negator appears in
the matrix clause, and (22b) is a case where the negator is in the complement clause.
(22)

a. [FinP [TP [NegP [[FinP [TP [vP V-v] T] T-Fin] Be] Neg] Neg-T] NEG-T-Fin]-297- 297 -

2008

2012







b. [FinP [TP [[FinP [TP [NegP [vP V-v] Neg] Neg-T] NEG-T-Fin] Be] T] T-FIN]
In the aspectual construction, the morpheme -te, which occurs with the main verb, has an
infinitival (or gerundive) character semantically, and occurs in the head position where afinite tense is placed. In view of this fact, it is reasonable to assume that -te heads a TP
projection that constitutes a non-finite complement (Kishimoto 2012).
Under the view taking the finiteness of a clause to be determined by Fin, which is placed
just above T, head raising of a tense head to Fin takes place even in the complement clause,
because the non-finite nature of -te needs to be determined within the projection of FinP.
Therefore, when a negator is embedded inside the aspectual verb, it should undergo Negraising to T filled by the affix -te (or -de), and subsequently to the embedded Fin. In effect,the examples in (23) suggest that Neg-head raising takes place in the complement clause of
the aspectual construction.
(23)

a. *John-ga
hasira-naku-mo
John-Nom run-Neg-also

at-te
be

i-ru.
be-Pres‘John is also not running.’
b. John-ga
hasira-nai-de-mo i-ru.
John-Nom run-Neg-also
be-Pres‘John is also not running.’
The unacceptability of (23a) shows that the negative head is raised to -te to derive a complex
head. On the other hand, (23b) shows that -te is not syntactically combined with a higher headby head raising. This being the case, it can be stated that a complex head comprised of Neg
and T (-te/-de) resides in the embedded Fin-head position, as (22b) illustrates.
The aspectual construction has a bi-clausal structure, and thus, the extent to which thescope of the negative nai extends should differ depending on where it appears. This is in fact
the case. To be concrete, when nai intervenes between the main and the aspectual verbs, adifference in the possibility of NPI licensing is observed, as seen in (24).
(24)

a. Zutto
John-gahon-sika
all.the.time John-Nom book-onlyyoma-nai-deread-Negi-ru.
be-Pres‘John has been reading only books all the time.’
John-sikab. * Zutto
all.the.time John-only

hon-obook-Accyoma-nai-deread-Negi-ru.
be-Pres‘Only John has been reading books all the time.’
While the NPI object in (24b) is licensed, the NPI subject in (24a) is not, showing that the-298- 298 -Case, Tense, and Subject Raising in Japanese (H. Kishimoto)negative scope does not extend over the matrix clause.7 If the negative nai is placed in thematrix clause, it takes scope over the matrix clause, and there is no subject-object asymmetry
found in NPI licensing, as shown in (25).
(25)

a. Saikin
Recently

John-ga
John-Nom

hon-sika
yon-debook-only readi-na-i.
be-Neg-Pres‘Recently, John has been reading only books.’b. SaikinJohn-sika hon-o
Recently John-only book-Acc

yon-de i-na-i.
read
be-Neg-Pres‘Recently, only John has been reading books.’
Importantly, the difference in acceptability observed between (24) and (25) suggests that thenominative subject is moved to Spec-TP from within vP by virtue of the EPP requirement
imposed on T, as illustrated in (26).
(26)

a. [FinP [TP

SUBJ [NegP [[FinP [TP

b. [FinP [TP SUBJ[vP OBJ

V-v]] T-Fin] Be]]] NEG-T-Fin][[FinP [TP [NegP [vP OBJ

V-v]]] NEG-T-Fin] Be]] T-Fin]

In (26a), where nai follows the aspectual verb iru, nai is raised to the matrix Fin, and thus, its
scope domain extends over the entire clause. Consequently, the subject as well as the objectof the main verb falls under the scope of negation. (In (26a), the subject has undergone
raising to the matrix Spec-TP, and yet it falls under scope of negation.) On the other hand, in(26b), where nai precedes the aspectual verb, its scope extends only over the embedded
clause. In this case, the object falls under scope of negation, which is placed in the embedded
clause, but the subject does not. In (24), a subject-object asymmetry is observed in regard to
NPI licensing, since the subject is extracted from the scope domain of nai. (Note that in the
aspectual construction, two TP projections are present, but the lower non-finite TP is not
relevant for the present discussion of the EPP.)
7An NPI object scrambled across the subject is not licensed by the negator nai that precedes the
aspectual verb, as shown in (ia).
(i)

a.??? Zutto
hon-sikai John-ga
ti
all.the.time book-only John-Nom

yoma-nai-de ir-u.
read-Neg
be-Pres‘John has been reading only books all the time.’b. * Zutto
hon-oiJohn-sika
all.the.time book-Acc John-onlytiyoma-nai-deread-Neg

ir-u.
be-Pres‘Only John has been reading books all the time.’
In (ia) both subject and object are located in the matrix clause, and thus, the subject NPI is notlicensed by nai, either, as shown in (ib). Miyagawa (2001) claims that the subject may remain in vPposition when an object is scrambled across it, but the examples in (i) suggest that this is not case.

-299- 299 -

2008

2012







It is worth noting at this point that a similar pattern of distribution is found in (27),which involve adjunct NPIs.
(27)

a. *John-wa
John-Topkinoo-made-sika
hataraka-nai-de i-ta.
yesterday-until-only work-Neg
be-Past‘John was working only until yesterday.’b. Zutto
John-wa koko-de-sika
all.the.time John-Top here-in-only

hataraka-nai-de i-ta.
work-Neg
be-Past‘John was working only here all the time.’
The temporal adverb in (27a) should be located in the matrix clause, because it is associatedwith the matrix tense. On the other hand, the locative PP in (27b) specifies the place where
the event described by the main verb takes place, which suggests that it is located in theembedded clause. The contrast in acceptability between (27a) and (27b) shows that thetemporal adjunct appears in the matrix clause, which is outside the scope of nai embedded
under iru, but the locative adjunct appears in the embedded clause.
Again, no difference in acceptability is observed between the two types of NPI adjuncts
with sika if the negator follows the aspectual verb, as shown in (28).
(28)

a. John-wa
John-Topkinoo-made-sika
hatarai-teyesterday-until-only work-Neg

i-nakat-ta.
be-Neg-Past‘John was working only until yesterday.’b. Zutto
John-wa koko-de-sika
all.the.time John-Top here-in-only

hatarai-te
work-Negi-nakat-ta.
be-Neg-Past‘John was working only here all the time.’
When nai appears in the matrix clause, as in (28), it takes scope over the entire clause.
Consequently, both types of NPI adjuncts in (28) are licensed under the scope of negation. In(27), in contrast, the negator that appears in the complement clause takes scope over theembedded TP, but not beyond, so a difference in acceptability shows up there.
Note also that the subjects of unergative and unaccusative predicates fall outside thescope of negation in the aspectual construction where nai precedes the aspectual verb iru.
(29)

a. *ZuttoJohn-sika
all.the.time John-only

hasira-nai-derun-Negi-ru.
be-Pres‘Only John has been running all the time.’-300- 300 -(Unergative)

Case, Tense, and Subject Raising in Japanese (H. Kishimoto)John-sika taore-nai-de i-ru.
b. * Zutto
all.the.time John-only fall-Neg
be-Pres‘Only John has been falling down all the time.’(Unaccusative)

The fact shows that not merely unergative predicates but also unaccusative predicatesinstantiate the raising of their subjects to the matrix Spec-TP. It goes without saying thatwhen the negative nai follows the aspectual verb, both types of sentences are acceptable,
because the scope of negation extends over the matrix TP.
(30)

a. Saikin John-sika hasit-te
recently John-only run

i-na-i.
be-Neg-Pres‘Only John has been running recently.’b. Saikin
recently(Unergative)

John-sika taore-te i-na-i.
John-only fallbe-Neg-Pres‘Only John has been falling down recently.’(Unaccusative)

Some researchers, such as Kageyama (1993) and Nishigauchi (1992), claim that the subjectsof unaccusative predicates, as opposed to those of unergative predicates, do not undergo
raising. On the contrary, since both the subjects fall outside the scope of negation in (29),where the negator is placed in the complement clause, it must be the case that the subjects
undergo raising to Spec-TP regardless of whether the predicates are unergative or
unaccusative.
In the aspectual construction where the negator appears to the left of the aspectual verb,
the matrix clause falls outside the scope of negation, so that a subject-object asymmetry isobserved with regard to NPI licensing. In the next section, I will turn to the discussion ofevidence suggesting that the possibility of subject raising in Japanese should be conditioned
by case.
3.

Canonical and Non-canonical Case Marking of Subjects

In this section, it is shown that when T is specified for [+Nom], the EPP requirement is
imposed on it. I argue that nominative and dative subjects undergo subject raising, but
obliquely-marked subjects do not (provided that no nominative argument appears in theclause).
3.1. Subject Raising in the Raising Construction
In the literature on Japanese, it is a locus of debate where subjects are located in clausestructure (see, e.g., Fukui 1986, 1990, Kuroda 1988, Ueda 1990, Nishigauchi and Ishii 2003).
This discussion is often confined to cases where subjects receive nominative case, but
subjects can bear some other case markings, e.g. the dative ni, ablative kara ‘from’, and-301- 301 -

2008

2012







instrumental de ‘with’, as illustrated in (31).
(31)

a. John-ga
ronbun-o
John-Nom paper-ACC

kai-ta.
write-Past‘John wrote a paper.’b. John-ni
John-Dat(Nominative subject)sore-gamie-ta.
that-Nom see-Past‘John saw that.’(Dative subject, mainly for stative predicates)

c. Watasi-kara sono koto-ohanasi-ta.
I-fromthat fact-Acc speak-Past‘I talked about that matter.’(Ablative subject, marks a source)d. Kodomo-tati-de atumat-ta.
child-Pl-with
get.together-Past‘The children got together.’(Instrumental subject, marks a plural agent)

In Japanese, at least four distinct types of marking are available for subjects.8 The subject ismarked with nominative case in (31a), and dative case in (31b). In (31c), the subject bears theablative kara ‘from’, since it is thematically conceived as a source, as well as an agent, i.e.
the ablative case kara can be assigned to the subject which is identified as a source(Kishimoto 2009, 2010).9 In (31d), the subject is assigned de ‘with’, for it is an agent
argument which has a plural referent, i.e. the argument refers to a group of people (Kishimoto
2005, Takubo 2010).
The thematic relations of arguments are uniquely identifiable by kara and de, whichshows that they are construed as inherent (or semantic) cases. On the other hand, nominativeand dative cases are structural ones, and hence do not specify the thematic relations ofarguments which they occur with.10 In the following discussion, making crucial use of the
aspectual construction, I will show that subject raising is instantiated in (31a-b), where thesubjects bear structural case, but not in (31c-d), where the subjects carry inherent case.

8

The discussion in this paper is limited to cases where subjects appear in main clauses, but it isworth noting that some other markings are available in embedding contexts; for instance, subjects ismarked with accusative case when they appear in the embedded clause of the ECM construction, andthey can bear genitive case when they appear inside relative or noun complement clauses.
9

When a DP marked with kara specifies ordering, it behaves like an adjunct. Thus, this type of DP is
not discussed here (see Kishimoto 2012).

10

Although there are a number of different views on dative case, I assume that it falls into the classof structural case. See, e.g. Butt (2006) for discussion on this point.

-302- 302 -Case, Tense, and Subject Raising in Japanese (H. Kishimoto)

To begin, the underlined arguments bearing different markings in the four clauses in (31)are all counted as subjects syntactically. This can be confirmed by the fact that they can be
the antecedents of the subject-oriented zibun.
(32)

a. Johni-ga
John-Nomzibuni-no
self-Genronbun-opaper-ACC

kai-ta.
write-Past‘John wrote his own paper.’b. Johni-ni
John-Dat

zibuni-no ie-ga
mie-ta.
self-Gen house-Nom see-Past‘John saw his own house.’
zibuni-noc. Johni-kara-wa
John-from-Top self-Gen

koto-ofact-Acc

hanasa-nakat-ta.
speak-Neg-Past‘John did not talk about his own matter.’d. Kodomo-tatii-de zibuni-no
child-Pl-with
self-Gennimotu-ohakon-da.11
luggage-Acc carry-Past‘The children carried their own luggage.’
Subject honorification provides another type of corroboration for the adequacy of the present
view. The examples in (33) show that the underlined arguments in (31) can be targeted bysubject honorification.
(33)

a. Sensei-ga
ronbun-oteacher-Nom paper-ACC

o-kaki-ni-nat-ta.
write-Hon-Past‘The teacher wrote a paper.’b. Sensei-ni
teacher-Dat

sore-gao-mie-ni-nat-ta.
that-Nom see-Hon-Past‘The teacher saw that.’c. Sensei-karateacher-fromsono koto-o o-hanasi-ni-nat-ta.
that fact-Acc speak-Hon-Past‘The teacher talked about that matter.’11

In this example, zibun can have either a group or a distributive reading. The two readings areavailable for zibun in cases where a subject refers to more than one individual.

-303- 303 -

2008

2012







d. Sensei-tati-deo-atumari-ni-nat-ta.
teacher-Pl-with get.together-Hon-Past‘The teachers got together.’
Given that the underlined arguments in (31) can be the targets of subject honorification, andthe antecedents of the reflexive zibun, both of which have subject orientation, it is safe tostate that they serve as subjects.12
Next, let us confirm that nominative subjects undergo raising to the matrix Spec-TP in
the aspectual construction. This can be seen by the fact that nominative subjects lie outside
the scope of negation when nai is embedded under iru.
(34)

a. *Zutto
all.the.time

John-sika gohan-oJohn-only rice-Acc

tabe-nai-de i-ta.
eat-Neg
be-Past‘Only John has been eating rice all the time.’
b. Zutto
John-gagohan-sika
all.the.time John-Nom rice-only

tabe-nai-de i-ta.
eat-Neg
be-Past‘John has been eating only rice all the time.’
In (34), the subject, but not the object, is allowed to occur with sika. Since the negative scope
extends over the complement clause, but not the matrix clause, the fact shows that thenominative subject is raised to the matrix Spec-TP.
Similarly, in the dative-subject construction, the dative subject is raised to Spec-TP,
whereas an object is not even if it is marked with nominative case. The contrast in
acceptability observed between (35a) and (35b) with regard to the licensing of the NPI sika
provides a confirmation of this fact.
(35)

John-ni-sika
sonna undoo-ga
deki-nai-dea. *Zutto
all.the.time John-Dat-only thatexercise-Nom can.do-Neg

i-ru.
be-Pres‘Only John has been able to do that exercise all the time.’
b. Zutto
John-ni-wa
sonna undoo-sika
deki-nai-de
all.the.time John-Dat-Top thatexercise-only can.do-Neg

i-ru.
be-Pres‘John has been able to do only that exercise all the time.’
Since the dative subject cannot occur with sika, as shown in (35a), it must be located in SpecTP in the main clause, i.e. the dative subject is moved to the matrix Spec-TP by virtue of
subject raising.
12

Subject honorification is subject-oriented, as often discussed (see e.g. Harada 1976, Hasegawa
2006), but in some cases, speaker variation might arise with regard to its possible targets.

-304- 304 -Case, Tense, and Subject Raising in Japanese (H. Kishimoto)In the dative-subject construction, just like the nominative-subject construction, thesubject-object asymmetry in NPI licensing observed in (35a-b) does not obtain when thenegator appears in the matrix clause. This is shown in (36).
(36)

a. John-ni-sikasonoJohn-Dat-only that

undoo-gadeki-teexercise-Nom can.do

i-na-i.
be-Neg-Pres‘Only John can do that exercise.’b. John-ni-wa
sono undoo-sika
deki-teJohn-Dat-Top that exercise-only can.do

i-na-i.
be-Neg-Pres‘John can do only that exercise.’
The absence of subject-object asymmetry in NPI licensing is naturally expected: since thenegative nai that follows the aspectual verb takes scope over the matrix clause, an NPI islicensed regardless of whether it appears in the matrix subject position or in the embedded
object position.
Let us continue to consider how NPIs with sika behave in cases where the subject ismarked with de ‘with’ or kara ‘from’. First, in the aspectual construction where nai is locatedin the complement clause (37), the NPI subject marked with the oblique de ‘with’, as well as
the NPI object, is licensed by nai.
(37)

a. Zutto
kodomo-tati-de-sika asobi-no keikaku-o tate-nai-de i-ru.
all.the.time child-Pl-Instr-only play-Gen plan-Acc make-Neg be-Pres‘Only the children have been making plans for their play all the time.’
b. Zutto
kodomo-tati-de asobi-no keikaku-sika tate-nai-de i-ru.
all.the.time child-Pl-Instrplay-Gen plan-only
make-Neg be-Pres‘The children have been making only plans for their play all the time.’

In (37), the subject and the object fall under the scope of negation, and therefore, an NPI canappear in either the subject or the object position.13 Since the negative scope does not extend
13

In a sentence like (38b), even when the object is scrambled across the de-marked subject, thesentence is acceptable, as in (i).

(i)

Zutto
asobi-no keikaku-sikai kodomo-tati-de ti tate-nai-de i-ru.
all.the.time play-Gen plan-only
child-Pl-Instr
make-Neg be-Pres‘The children have been making only plans for their play all the time.’

This is obviously a reflection of the fact that the de-marked subject remains in the base position
without raising to TP. In (i), since the subject remains in the embedded clause, the scrambled object
can appear in the embedded clause, over which the negative nai extends its scope. The same factobtains in a clause where the subject is marked with kara ‘from’.

-305- 305 -

2008

2012







over the matrix clause, it must be the case that the obliquely-marked subject remains in situ
without raising to the matrix Spec-TP.
In the ablative-subject construction in (38) as well, the oblique NPI subject, alongside anaccusative NPI object, is licensed by falling under the scope of nai located in the subordinate
clause.
(38)

a. Zutto
hahaoya-kara-sika hanasi-o si-nai-de i-ru.
all.the.time mother-from-only talk-Acc do-Neg be-Pres‘Only the mother has been talking all the time.’
b. Zutto
hahaoya-kara-wa
all.the.time mother-from-Top

sonna hanasi-sika
thattalk-only

si-nai-de i-ru.
do-Neg be-Pres‘The mother has been giving only that kind of talk all the time.’
The fact that both NPI subject and object are licensed suggests that the kara-marked subject
as well does not undergo raising to the matrix TP.14
The data discussed thus far indicate that dative and nominative subjects undergo raising
to Spec-TP, while oblique subjects do not. The question to be addressed at this point is why itis that the nominative and the dative subjects undergo raising to Spec-TP. As well observed(see Takezawa 1997, Tada 1992, and many others), the availability or unavailability of
nominative case in Japanese is correlated with the question of whether the clause has (finite)tense. In the light of the fact that both nominative-subject and dative-subject constructions
comprise nominative arguments, whose case feature is valued by tense, I suggest that whentense carries the uninterpretable case feature [+Nom], the EPP requirement is imposed on T,
i.e. an EPP feature is assigned to it.
If subject raising is implemented in cases where tense has [+Nom] to value the casefeature of a nominative argument, sentences which do not comprise any nominativearguments are not expected to instantiate subject raising. Note, however, that Japanese has thecase requirement that a tensed clause has at least one nominative argument, which is often
referred to as the ‘nominative-case’ constraint (Shibatani 1978). The nominative-caseconstraint applies fairly persistently, but still, there are a number of syntactic contexts where
the nominative-case constraint does not apply. One such context is found in the obliquesubject constructions where the nominative case on the subject, which needs to be licensed byT, is replaced by an oblique marker kara or de. The data regarding the oblique-subject
constructions in (37) and (38) confirm that no subject raising takes place when the clause

14

It goes without saying that the obliquely-marked NPI subject raised remaining in the base positionis licensed by the negator nai that follows the aspectual verb.

-306- 306 -Case, Tense, and Subject Raising in Japanese (H. Kishimoto)does not comprise any nominative argument.15
Note that the dative-subject construction is subject to the nominative-case constraint.
Thus, the variant of the dative-subject clause that marks the object with accusative case in(39) is not acceptable.
(39)

John-niJohn-Dat{sore-ga/*sore-o}
deki-ru.
{that-Nom/that-Acc can.do-Pres‘John can do that.’
Owing to the fact that the nominative-case constraint applies to the dative-subject
construction, the syntactic construal which does not have a nominative argument cannot be
constructed from the dative-subject construction (see section 4).
Under the present analysis taking tense to be responsible for determining the possibilityof subject raising, it is further predicted that the raising of an oblique-marked subject to SpecTP is instantiated if the clause has a nominative argument. This prediction is in fact borne out,
since oblique subjects are susceptible to subject raising when they occur in clauses that
contain nominative objects, as I will discuss below. (40) is a case where the subject is marked
with kara ‘from’.
(40)

a. *Zutto
hahaoya-kara-sika hanasi-ga deki-nai-de i-ru.
all.the.time mother-from-only talk-Nom can.do-Neg be-Pre‘Only the mother has been able to talk all the time.’
b. Zutto
hahaoya-kara-wa sonna
all.the.time mother-from-Top thathanasi-sika
talk-only

deki-nai-de
can.do-Neg

i-ru.
be-Pres‘The mother has been able to give only that kind of talk all the time.’
The examples in (40) differ from those in (38) in the choice of predicate. In (40), the object ismarked with nominative case, since the predicate is dekiru ‘can do’. (Note that dekiru, which
can sanction nominative case on its object, is a suppletive potential form of suru ‘do’.) The
examples in (40) show that while the NPI object, which is marked with nominative case, islicensed by nai, the NPI subject does not, owing to its raising to Spec-TP.
The same holds true for the construction whose subject is de-marked. As can be seenfrom (41), the subject marked with de is amenable to subject raising if the clause contains anominative object.

15

In matrix clauses, the subjects of unaccusative verbs cannot be marked with accusative case, eventhough they initially appear in object position. It should also be noted that no semantic markers
substituting the nominative case on the subjects of unaccusative verbs are available in Japanese.

-307- 307 -

2008

(41)

2012







kodomo-tati-de-sika hanasi-ga deki-nai-de i-ru.
a. *Zutto
all.the.time child-Pl-with-only
talk-Nom can.do-Neg be-Pres‘Only the children have been able to talk all the time.’
b. Zutto
kodomo-tati-de-wa sonna hanasi-sika deki-nai-de i-ta.
all.the.time child-Pl-with-Top thattalk-Nom
can.do-Neg be-Past‘The children have been able to give only that kind of talk all the time.’

In (41), the subject marked with de, but not the nominative object, falls outside the scope ofnegation. This stands in contrast with the de-marked subject appearing in the clause which
has an accusative object, as in (37).
The negative nai’s failure to license the oblique subject NPIs in the aspectual
construction where the negative takes scope only over its complement clause gives us a clear
indication that oblique subjects are raised to the matrix Spec-TP when the EPP requirement isobtained, as illustrated in (42b).
(42)a. [TP SUBJ-kara/de [TP SUBJ-kara/de [vP SUBJ-kara/de OBJ-ACC Vv] ] T]
b. [TP SUBJ-kara/de [TP SUBJ-kara/de [vP SUBJ-kara/de OBJ-NOM Vv] ] T]

Subject raising is not implemented when an object is marked with accusative rather than
nominative case. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that subject raising is induced when tensebears a case feature to value the case feature on a nominative argument.
3.2. Control Construction
The raising construction where the negator is located in the complement clause, nosubject-object asymmetry in NPI licensing is observed when the subject does not undergo
raising to the matrix Spec-TP, as seen above. In the aspectual construction where the mainverb is combined with an aspectual verb like oku ‘put’ (see section 2.1), the subject isselected by oku, and thus, it is base-generated in the matrix clause, while PRO appears in thecomplement clause, as (43) illustrates.
(43)[FinP [TP [vP SUBJ [FinP [TP PRO [NegP [vP V-v]]] NEG-T-FIN] PUT]] T-FIN]

This leads to another predication. In the control construction where the negator is located to
the left of the verb oku ‘put’, as in (43), it is predicated that NPI subjects will not be licensed
even in a case where the EPP is not imposed on the clause. This prediction is in fact borne
out, as we can see from (44).
(44)

a. *Zutto
kodomo-tati-de-sika asobi-no keikaku-o tate-nai-de oi-ta.
all.the.time child-Pl-Instr-onlyplay-Gen plan-Acc make-Neg put-Past‘Only the children made a plan for their play all the time.’-308- 308 -Case, Tense, and Subject Raising in Japanese (H. Kishimoto)b. Zutto
kodomo-tati-de asobi-no keikaku-sika tate-nai-de oi-ta.
all.the.time child-Pl-Instrplay-Gen plan-only
make-Neg put-Past‘The children made a plan only for their play all the time.’
In (44), the subject marked with de should not be raised to the matrix Spec-TP in the absenceof a nominative argement. Nevertheless, the subject lies outside the scope of negation, since
the negative scope extends only over the complement clause. Hence, (44a) is unacceptable.
The same fact obtains even when the subject is marked with kara, as seen in (45).
(45)

hahaoya-kara-sika hanasi-o si-nai-de oi-ta.
a. *Zutto
all.the.time mother-from-only talk-Acc do-Neg put-Past‘Only the mother talked all the time.’
b. Zutto
hahaoya-kara-wa sonna hanasi-sika
all.the.time mother-from-Top thattalk-only

si-nai-de oi-ta.
do-Neg put-Past‘The mother talked about only that kind of thing all the time.’
The difference in acceptability between (44a) and (45a), on the one hand, versus (44b) and(45b), on the other hand, is naturally expected, given the configuration (43). In (43), thesubject remaining in the base-generated position of the matrix clause falls outside the scopeof nai, which resides in the embedded clause. On the other hand, the object lies inside thescope of negation. Accordingly, a subject-object asymmetry is observed with regard to NPI
licensing.16
This pattern of distribution is found in a case where the subject is marked withnominative case, as seen in (46).17(46)

Ken-sika hanasi-o si-nai-de oi-ta.
a. *Zutto
all.the.time Ken-only talk-Acc do-Neg put-Past‘Only Ken talked all the time.’
b. Zutto
Ken-wa sonna hanasi-sika
all.the.time Ken-Top thattalk-only

si-nai-de oi-ta.
do-Neg put-Past‘Ken gave only that kind of talk all the time.’

16

In Hornstein’s analysis (1999), which dispenses with PRO, the controller undergoes movement
starting from the position where PRO is base-generated. Even if this analysis adopted, no problem
arises, because only the overt position of the controller is relevant for NPI licensing.

17

The dative-subject construction is not discussed here. This is because the aspectual construction
with the verb oku ‘put’ is not acceptable when a dative-subject clause, which does not describe an
event performed by the subject, is embedded.

-309- 309 -

2008

2012







The nominative subject in (46), unlike the oblique subjects in (44) and (45), should be moved
to the matrix Spec-TP. Nevertheless, these subjects share the property that they are located in
the matrix clause, and hence the subject NPIs are not licensed by nai regardless of theirmarking in the control construction where the negator precedes the verb oku ‘put’.
On the other hand, when the negator follows the verb oku ‘put’, the subject NPIs arelicensed under the scope of negation, as shown in (47).
(47)

a. Kodomo-tati-de-sika asobi-no keikaku-o tate-te oka-nakat-ta.
child-Pl-Instr-onlyplay-Gen plan-Acc make put-Neg-Past‘Only the children made a plan for their play.’b. Hahaoya-kara-sika hanasi-o si-te oka-nakat-ta.
mother-from-only talk-Acc do
put-Neg-Past‘Only the mother talked.’c. Ken-sika hanasi-o
Ken-only talk-Acc

si-te
do

oka-nakat-ta.
put-Neg-Past‘Only Ken talked.’
What is more, there is an asymmetry in NPI licensing of temporal and locative adjuncts, as
shown in (48).
(48)

a. *John-wa
John-Topkinoo-made-sika
hataraka-nai-de oi-ta.
yesterday-until-only work-Neg
put-Past‘John worked only until yesterday.’b. Zutto
John-wa koko-de-sika
all.the.time John-Top here-in-only

hataraka-nai-de oi-ta.
work-Neg
put-Past‘John worked only here all the time.’
This distribution observed in (48) falls into place, if the temporal adjunct appears in thematrix clause, which is outside the scope of nai embedded under iru, but the locative adjunctdoes not.
The data indicate that in the control construction with the aspectual verb oku, all types ofsubjects appear in the matrix clause.
3.3. Summary
The overall patterns of subject raising that we have observed for the raising construction
headed by the aspectual verb iru ‘be’ are shown in (49).

-310- 310 -Case, Tense, and Subject Raising in Japanese (H. Kishimoto)(49)

a. [TP SUBJ-NOM [TP SUBJ-NOM [vP SUBJ-NOM (OBJ-ACC) V-v]]]
b. [TP SUBJ-DAT [TP SUBJ-NOM [vP SUBJ-DAT OBJ-NOM V-v]]]
c. [TP SUBJ-DAT [TP[vP SUBJ-INSTR/-ABL

V-v]]] (No Raising)It should be apparent from (49) that the presence or absence of subject raising is correlatedwith the question of whether T has the case feature [+Nom], i.e. wherever T enters into a caserelation with a nominative argument, i.e. T values the case feature of a nominative argument,
subject raising is instantiated.
If the EPP is tied to nominative case, subject raising is instantiated in the nominativesubject construction as well as in the dative-subject construction, due to the fact that theyneed to contain a nominative argument, by virtue of the nominative-case constraint. The
oblique subject constructions offer cases where subject raising may not be applicable, because
the nominative case on the subjects can be replaced by oblique markers without affecting
their acceptability if certain semantic criteria are met. (In the instrumental-subject
construction, the subject needs to represent a plural agent, and in the ablative-subject
construction, the subject needs to be construed as a source.)
In essence, the EPP requirement is not always imposed on T in Japanese; in ordinary
clauses, subjects undergo A-movement to Spec-TP, because they are associated with the Tthat values the case feature on a nominative argument. Oblique subjects are not raised toSpec-TP when it is possible for the clause to be exempt from the nominative-case constraint
via semantic-case replacement. Nevertheless, when nominative arguments are included
elsewhere in the clauses, even the oblique subjects undergo raising to Spec-TP. The fact
points to the conclusion that the EPP requirement on T is motivated when tense bears the casefeature [+Nom] to value the case feature of a nominative argument. Since the EPP
requirement is imposed on the T-head that values case features, the EPP should be tied tocase (rather than agreement).
4.

What Derives the Nominative-Case Constraint?

In the oblique-subject constructions, subject raising is not implemented if the clauses do
not comprise any nominative argument. As noted earlier, Japanese has the nominative-caseconstraint, and the oblique-subject constructions, where semantic-case replacement takes
place, constitute exceptions to this constraint (Inoue 1998, 2007).18 This might give us theimpression that semantic-case replacement always provides a way of voiding the nominativecase constraint. This is not the case, however. In (50a), the nominative case on the locativeargument can be replaced by kara without affecting acceptability, but in (50b), the same
18

Inoue (1998, 2007) observes that when subjects are marked with oblique case, the clause is exempt
from the nominative-case constraint, but does not provide any explanation as to why this constraint
does not apply in this case.

-311- 311 -

2008

2012







replacement results in unacceptability.
(50)

a. Kodomo-ga kono heya-ga/-kara
de-rare-nakat-ta.
child-Nom this room-Nom/-Abl leave-can-Neg-Past‘The child was unable to leave this room.’b. Kodomo-ni kono heya-ga/*-karachild-Dat
this room-Nom/-Ablde-rare-nakat-ta.
leave-Past‘The child was unable to leave this room.’
The sole difference between the two examples lies in the fact that whereas the subject ismarked with nominative case in (50a), it is marked with dative case in (50b). The
grammatical status of (50b) is comparable to that found in (51).
(51)

Kodomo-ni kono heya-ga/*-ode-rare-nakat-ta.
child-Dat
this room-Nom/-Acc leave-can-Neg-Past‘The child was unable to leave this room.’

Since the oblique kara cannot replace the nominative case in (50b), it should be apparent that
owing to the nominative-case constraint, the dative-subject construction (50b) is ruled out asungrammatical.
The data show that clauses with no nominative argument derived by replacing
nominative case with a semantic case are not always legitimate (due to the nominative-caseconstraint). If this is the case, we are faced with a paradox: the nominative-case constraint
does not apply when semantic-case replacement takes place on subjects, as demonstrated in
section 3, but in (50b) the same semantic-case replacement cannot void the nominative-caseconstraint. Why is this the case?
The difference emerges depending on the property of tense. The crucial fact is that (50b)falls into a type of dative-subject construction. Since the dative case on the subject is licensed
by T when the predicate (or to be more precise, the tense associated with the predicate) is
stative (Kuno 1973), I suggest that the nominative-case constraint is enforced when T bears
an uninterpretable case feature, but it is not when T does not carry any case feature to be used
for deleting case features on arguments. Note that in Japanese, finite T does not always value
the case feature on a nominative argument, which suggests that T can optionally bear the casefeature [+Nom]. In the light of this fact, I propose that Japanese makes two kinds of T’s
available, which are distinguished according to whether or not they carry uninterpretable casefeatures, and that when T bears case features, it always includes the most prominent casefeature of [+Nom], which I claim is responsible for the nominative-case constraint.
An ordinary type of T is equipped with case features, and in the nominative-subject-312- 312 -Case, Tense, and Subject Raising in Japanese (H. Kishimoto)construction, T comprises [+Nom], as in T[+NOM].19 In the nominative-subject construction,
the case feature on T is deleted via agreement with the case feature on the nominative subject.
If there is an object, its case feature as well as the case feature on v is deleted by agreement.
(If all the uninterpretable features are deleted, the derivation converges.)(52)

OBJ[+ACC]a. [SUBJ[+NOM]

b. [SUBJ ABL/INSTR OBJ[+ACC]

v[+ACC] T [+NOM] ]v[+ACC] T ]The nominative-case constraint applies to (52a), for T carries a case feature. Thus, thederivation does not converge if the clause does not have a nominative argument. On the other
hand, the oblique markers de and kara do not require an external licenser, and if thenominative case on the subject is replaced by an oblique marker, T can appear without any
case feature, as in (52b). In (52b), the derivation is legitimate, because the case feature on v isdeleted in agreement with the case feature on the accusative object. Since T does not include
any case features that need to be deleted in the derivation, (52b) is exempt from thenominative-case constraint, and hence the sentence is acceptable even if it does not comprise
any nominative argument.
The nominative-case constraint cannot be voided in the dative-subject construction,
where the subject is marked with dative case. The fact naturally falls out if tense isresponsible for case licensing of dative case, as well as nominative case in the dative-subject
construction, i.e. T is furnished with [+Dat] alongside [+Nom], as in T[+DAT], [+NOM]. In (53a),
the dative case feature is deleted in agreement with the case feature on the dative subject, andthe nominative case feature can be deleted by the case feature on the nominative object.
(53)

a. [ SUBJ [+DAT]OBJ[+NOM]v

. * [ SUBJ[+DAT]OBJ[+ACC]

v[+ACC] T [+DAT] [+NOM] ]c. *[ SUBJ[+DAT]OBJ-ABLv

T [+DAT] [+NOM] ]T [+DAT] [+NOM] ]Note, however, that even if nominative case on an object is replaced by an oblique marker, asin (53c), T needs to bear the case feature [+Dat] to license the dative subject, which meansthat T must participate in a case-licensing relation with an argument. In this case, [+Nom]
appears on T, which needs to be deleted for the derivation to converge. In (53b-c), thederivation is not legitimate, because [+Nom] on T remains undeleted in the absence of anominative argument. When T bears [+Nom], a violation of the nominative-case constraint is
19

Pesetsky and Torrego (2001) suggests nominative case should be an unvalued tense feature on D,
so that it is deleted in association with tense. In Chomsky (2000, 2001), manifestation of structural
Case depends on the probe, and T values the case feature on an argument as nominative, and v as
accusative, etc. But the Japanese facts illustrate that tense does not necessarily value the case featureof a nominative argument. Thus, the present analysis assumes that a case feature contained in theprobe determines the case value of an argument, and that T and v contain [+Nom] and [+Acc],
respectively.

-313- 313 -

2008

2012







incurred if nominative case is replaced by accusative case or the ablative kara. Thus,
sentences where T contains a case feature cannot be well-formed unless they include
nominative arguments.
Incidentally, if the dative case is replaced by kara in the dative-subject construction, theresulting clause does not result in unacceptability.
(54)

Kodomo-ni/-kara kono heya-ga
child-Dat/-Ablthis room-Nom

mie-nakat-ta.
see-Neg-Past‘The child was unable to see this room.’
In (54), when the dative case is replaced by the ablative kara, T comprising [+Nom] (but not[+Dat]) is merged. In this case, the sentence is not excluded as unacceptable, due to thepresence of a nominative argument.
The present analysis taking tense to be responsible for the nominative-case constraint
crucially draws on the assumption that the case feature of the dative subject is valued by T
(Chomsky 2001, 2004, 2008). It is sometimes assumed (see e.g. Ura 1999), however, that
dative case is construed as inherent case, which does not require the presence of an external
licenser. Nevertheless, there is good reason to believe that the case feature on the dative
subject is valued by T. To make this point, first consider (55).
(55)

a. [PROarb kodomo-o home-ru]
child-Acc praise-Pres

koto-wafact-Topii
koto da.
good thing Cop‘It is a good thing [PROarb to praise children].’b. * [John-ga PROarb home-ru][John-Nompraise-Preskoko-wafact-Topii
koto da.
good thing Cop(Lit.) ‘It is a good thing [for John to praise PROarb].’
The examples in (55) show that with a non-stative predicate, its nominative subject, but not
an accusative object, can be turned into PROarb. In contrast, in the dative-subject construction,
it is the dative rather than the nominative argument that can serve as PROarb, as seen in (56).
(56)

a. [PROarb kodomo-ga
child-Nomhome-rare-ru]
koto-wapraise-can-Pres fact-Topii
koto da.
good thing Cop‘It is a good thing [PROarb to be able to praise children].’koto da.
b. * [John-ni PROarb home-rare-ru] koko-wa ii
[John-Datpraise-can-Pres fact-Top good thing Cop(Lit.) ‘It is a good thing [for John to be able to praise PROarb].’
According to Chomsky and Lasnik (1993), PRO is licensed by receiving null case from-314- 314 -Case, Tense, and Subject Raising in Japanese (H. Kishimoto)infinitival T. In Japanese, a verb in the present form can be associated with infinitival T, andthus, (55a) and (56a) can have PROarb interpretation (see Kuroda 1983).20 Given that PROarb
occurs by replacing an argument appearing in subject position whose case feature is valued
by finite T, it is reasonable to say that T is the case licenser of subjects in the dative-subject
construction.21
There are cases where a dative argument is valued by the verb, rather than T. When adative argument does not enter into an agreement relation with T, nominative case can be
replaced by an oblique marker without affecting acceptability, as exemplified in (57).
(57)

Haha-ga/-kara
kodomo-ni
mother-Nom/-Abl child-Dat

hon-oatae-ta.
book-Acc give-Past‘The mother gave her child a book.’
The ditransitive predicate ataeru ‘give’ allows the nominative case marking of the source
subject to be replaced by kara even in the presence of the dative argument. When the subject
receives the oblique kara, no nominative argument shows up in the clause, but still, thesentence is acceptable. This is obviously due to the fact that the dative case of the indirect
object in (57) is not valued by T. Empirical evidence in support of this view can be adduced
from (58).
(58)

a. Hon-ga
kodomo-ni
book-Nom child-Nom

atae-rare-ta.
give-Pass-Past‘The book was given to the child.’
b. Kodomo-ga
child-Nomhon-oatae-rare-ta.
book-Acc give-Pass-Past‘The child was given the book.’
The examples in (58) show that the dative object of the verb ataeru can be promoted to apassive subject via (direct) passivization, in the same way as the accusative object whose casefeature is valued by v.22 This fact suggests that the case feature of the dative argument
20

Needless to say, no PROarb interpretation is available if the verb appears in the past form.

21

The occurrence of PRO is restricted to a subject position, so that the nominative argument cannot
be replaced by PRO even though T values its case feature.

22

In this case, since the case feature of the dative argument is not valued by T, this argument cannot
be turned into PROarb, as shown in (i).
(i) * [Hahaoya-ga PROarb hon-o[mother-Nom
book-Acc

atae-ru] koto-wa ii
koto da.
give-Pres fact-Top good thing Cop‘It is a good thing [for mothers to give books to PROarb].’-315- 315 -

2008

2012







selected by the verb ageru is not valued by T. Thus, when the nominative case on the subject
is replaced by kara, the T-head without a case feature can be merged. In this case, thenominative-case constraint does not apply to (57).
In a nutshell, the nominative-case constraint emerges from the property of tense. In
unmarked cases, T bears [+Nom], and the clause needs at least one nominative argument,
which carries a case feature that can delete [+Nom]. The derivation is legitimate when[+Nom] is successfully deleted in agreement with the case feature of a nominative argument.
On the other hand, if nominative case on an argument is replaced by a semantic marker, T can
appear without [+Nom]. In such a case, the nominative-case constraint is not implemented, as
T does not contain [+Nom], and the sentence can be legitimate even without a nominativeargument. In the dative-subject construction, T contains [+Dat] to be deleted in agreementwith the case feature of the dative subject. Since this kind of T must carry [+Nom] as well,
the nominative-case constraint cannot be rendered inapplicable, even if nominative case on a
non-subject argument is replaced by an oblique marker.
5.

Conclusion

In this paper, on the basis of the aspectual construction where a negator precedes the
aspectual verb iru, it has been shown that nominative and dative subjects undergo raising toSpec-TP, while obliquely-marked subjects remain in the base position without subject raising(provided no nominative arguments are included in the clause). In Japanese, subject raising toSpec-TP is motivated when tense has an uninterpretable case feature [+Nom] to value thecase feature on a nominative argument. Japanese makes two kinds of T available—one withan uninterpretable case feature, and the other without. When tense does not carry any casefeatures, the EPP requirement is suspended, because the T that does not require a specifier
can be merged to the clause. This analysis provides a ready account for the fact that evenobliquely-marked subjects undergo raising to Spec-TP, in cases where T carries a case feature
to value the case feature of a nominative argument. The overall conclusion is that in Japanese,when T has the case feature [+Nom], it carries [+EPP] as well, which suggests that the EPP istied to case rather than agreement (in Japanese).

References
Alexiadou, A. and E. Anagnostopoulou (1988) “Parametrizing Agr: Word Order, Verb Movement and
EPP-checking,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16, 491–539.
Aoyagi, H. and T. Ishii (1994) “On NPI Licensing in Japanese.” In N. Akatsuka ed., Japanese/Korean
Linguistics 4, CSLI Publications, Stanford, 295–311.
Bokovi, . (2002) “A-movement and the EPP,” Syntax 5, 167–218.
Butt, M. (2006) Theories of Case, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Chomsky, N. (1982) Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

-316- 316 -Case, Tense, and Subject Raising in Japanese (H. Kishimoto)

CChomsky, N. (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework.” In R. Martin, D. Michaels and J.
Uriagereka eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 89–155.
Chomsky, N. (2001) “Derivation by Phase.” In M. Kenstowicz ed., Ken Hale: A Life in Language,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1–52.
Chomsky, N. (2004) “Beyond Explanatory Adequacy.” In A. Belletti ed., Structures and Beyond: The
Cartography of Syntactic Structures: Volume 3, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 104–131.
Chomsky, N. (2008) “On Phases.” In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero and M. L. Zubizarreta eds., Foundational
Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass., 133–166.
Chomsky, N. and H. Lasnik (1993) “The Theory of Principles and Parameters.” In J. Jacobs, A. Von
Stechow and W. Sternefeld eds., Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary
Research, Volume 1, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 506–569.
Fukui, N. (1986) A Theory of Category Projection and Its Application, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Fukui, N. (1995) Theory of Projection in Syntax, CSLI and Kurosio, Stanford and Tokyo.
Harada, S-I. (1976) “Honorifics.” In M. Shibatani ed., Syntax and Semantics 5: Japanese Generative
Grammar, Academic Press, New York, 499–561.
Haegeman, L. (1995) The Syntax of Negation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hasegawa, N. (2006) “Honorifics.” In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk eds., The Blackwell
Companion to Syntax Volume II, Blackwell, Oxford, 493–543.
Holmberg, A. (2000) “Scandinavian Stylistic Fronting: How Any Category Can Become an
Expletive,” Linguistic Inquiry 31, 445–483.
Hornstein, N. (1999) “Movement and Control,” Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69–96.
Inoue, K. (1998) “Sentences without Nominative Subjects in Japanese,” Grant-in-Aid for COE
Research Report (2A): Researching and Verifying an Advanced Theory of Human Language,
Kanda University of International Studies, 1–34.
Inoue, K. (2007) “Case (With Special Reference to Japanese).” In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk
eds., The Blackwell Companion to Syntax Volume I, Blackwell, Oxford, 295–373.
Kageyama, T. (1993) Bunpoo-to Gokeisei, Hituzi Shyobo, Tokyo.
Kato, Y. (1985) Negative Sentences in Japanese: Sophia Linguistica XIX, Sophia University.
Kishimoto, H. (2001) “Binding of Indeterminate Pronouns and Clause Structure in Japanese,”
Linguistic Inquiry 32, 597–633.
Kishimoto, H. (2005) Toogokoozoo-to Bunpookankei, Kurosio, Tokyo.
Kishimoto, H. (2007) “Negative Scope and Head Raising in Japanese,” Lingua 117, 247–288.
Kishimoto, H. (2008) “On the Variability of Negative Scope in Japanese,” Journal of Linguistics 44,
379–435.
Kishimoto, H. (2009) “Subject Raising in Japanese.” In R. Vermeulen and R. Shibagaki eds.,
Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics: MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics 58, MITWPL, Cambridge, Mass., 225–240.
Kishimoto, H. (2010) “Subjects and Constituent Structure in Japanese,” Linguistics 48, 629-670.
Kishimoto, H. (2012). “Subject Honorification and the Position of Subjects in Japanese,” Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 21, 1–41.
Kitagawa, Y. (1986) Subjects in Japanese and English, Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Koizumi, M. (1999) Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax, Hituzi Shyobo, Tokyo.
Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche (1991) “The Position of Subjects,” Lingua 85, 211–258.
Kuno, S. (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kuroda, S-Y. (1983) “What Can Japanese Say about Government and Binding,” Proceedings of theWest Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 2, 153–164.

-317- 317 -

2008

2012







Kuroda, S-Y. (1988) “Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English and Japanese,”
Linguisticae Invesitgationes 12, 1–47.
Landau, I. (2007) “EPP Extensions,” Linguistic Inquiry 38, 445–523.
Martin, R. (1999) “Case, the EPP, and Minimalism.” In S. D. Epstein and N. Hornstein, eds., Working
Minimalism, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1–25.
McCloskey, J. (1996) “Subjects and Subject Positions in Irish.” In R. Borsely and I. Roberts eds., The
Syntax of Celtic Languages: A Comparative Perspective, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 241–283.
McCloskey, J. (1997) “Subjecthood and Subject Positions.” In L. Haegeman ed., Elements ofGrammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 197–235.
Miyagawa, S. (1989a) “Light Verbs and the Ergative Hypothesis,” Linguistic Inquiry 20, 659–668.
Miyagawa, S. (1989b) Syntax and Semantics 22: Structure and Case Marking in Japanese, Academic
Press, San Diego.
Miyagawa, S. (2001) “The EPP, Scrambling and Wh-in-situ.” In M. Kenstowicz ed., Ken Hale: A Lifein Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 293–338.
Miyagawa, S. (2010) Why Agree? Why Move?: Unifying Agreement-based and DiscourseConfigurational Languages, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Nishigauchi, T. (1992) “Nihongo-no Hi-taikaku-koobun to Seeta Riron,” Osaka Daigaku
Gengobunka-gaku 1, Osaka University, 41–52.
Nishigacuhi, T. and Y. Ishii (2003) Eigo-kara Nihongo-o Miru, Kenkyusha, Tokyo.
Pesetsky, D. and E. Torrego (2001) “T-to-C movement: Causes and Consequences.” In M.
Kenstowicz ed., Ken Hale: A Life in Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 355–426.
Radford, A. (2009) Analysing English Sentences: A Minimalist Approach, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Rizzi, L. (1997) “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery.” In L. Haegeman ed., Elements ofGrammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 281–337.
Rothstein, S. (2001) Predicates and Their Subjects, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Shibatani, M. (1978) Nihongo-no Bunseki, Taishukan, Tokyo.
Sportiche, D. (1988) “A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and Its Corollaries for Constituent Structure,”
Linguistic Inquiry 19, 429–449.
Tada, H. (1992) “Nominative Objects in Japanese,” Journal of Japanese Linguistics 14, 91–108.
Takezawa, K. (1987) A Configurational Approach to Case Marking in Japanese, Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Washington.
Takezawa, K. (2004) “Nihogo-hukugoozyutugo-ni-okeru Hiteizi-no Iti-to Setu-koozoo,” Nihongo
Bunpoo Gakkai Dai-Go-Kai Happyoo Ronbun Shuu, 175–184.
Takubo, Y. (2010) Nihongo-no Koozoo: Suiron-to Tisiki-Kanri, Kurosio, Tokyo.
Ueda, M. (1990) Japanese Phrase Structure and Parameter Setting, Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Ueda, Y. (2003) “Subject Positions in Japanese.” In P. M. Clancy ed., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 11,
529–542.
Ura, H. (1999) Checking Theory and Grammatical Functions in Universal Grammar, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Zanuttini, R. (1997) “Negation and Verb Movement.” In L. Haegeman ed., The New Comparative
Syntax, Longman, London, 214–245.

-318- 318 -ON THE UNAVAILABILITY OF NP-ELLIPSISWITH JAPANESE RELATIVE CLAUSES *Yoichi Miyamoto
Osaka University

1.

Introduction

Well attested since Jackendoff (1971), English permits so-called ‘N’-ellipsis’,reformulated as ‘NP-ellipsis’ under the DP hypothesis (Abney 1987). Accordingly, not only
(1a) but also (1b) is grammatical.
(1)

a. Jiro criticized Taro’s attitude, but Yoshio criticized Hanako’s attitude.
b. Jiro criticized Taro’s attitude, but Yoshio criticized Hanako’s.

However, an NP cannot always be elided in DP. For example, (2b) is ungrammatical, in
contrast to (2a):(2)

a. Jiroo criticized the attitude, but Yoshio criticized the attitude.
b. * Jiroo criticized the attitude, but Yoshio criticized the.

Lobeck (1990) as well as Saito and Murasugi (1990) (henceforth S&M) argue that thecontrast between (1b) and (2b) follows from which positions Hanako’s and the occupy within
the DP. The structure of the word sequence Hanako’s attitude in (1a) is as in (3):(3)[DP Hanako’s [NP attitude]]Here, Hanako’s occupies DP SPEC. This structure contrasts with that of the DP the attitude,
where the is located in D, not in DP SPEC, as shown in (4):(4)[DP [D’ the [NP attitude]]]* A previous version of this paper was presented at the 17th Workshop of the International Research
Project on Comparative Syntax and Acquisition (Nanzan University) on February 16, 2013. I am
indebted to the participants at this occasion; in particular, Keiko Murasugi, Koichi Otaki, Mamoru
Saito, Koji Sugisaki, Hiroaki Tada, Daiko Takahashi, and Kensuke Takita. I am also thankful to Jon
Clenton and Jonah T.-H. Lin for invaluable comments and suggestions, and to Masako Maeda and herfriends for data from Kyushu dialects. This research was supported in part by the grant from theJapanese Ministry of Education and Science to the Center for Linguistics at Nanzan University forestablishment of centers for advanced research (International Collaborative Research Project on
Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition) as well as the grant-in-aid for scientific research(No.22520397) awarded to the author. Usual disclaimers apply.

-319-

2008

2012









The fact that (2b), in contrast to (1b), is ungrammatical, leads to the generalization that only
when DP SPEC is filled, can NP be elided.
S&M show that this “DP SPEC” requirement on NP-ellipsis is also operative inJapanese; consider that in (5), parallel to (1b), the NP taido ‘attitude’ can be elided:1(5)hihanshita ga,
Yoshio-wa
Jiroo-wa [DP Taroo-no [NP taido]]-o
Jiroo-TOP
Taroo-GENattitude-ACC criticized though-TOP[DP Hanako-no ([NP taido])]-o
hihanshita.
-GENattitude-ACC criticized‘Jiro criticized Taro’s attitude, but Yoshio criticized Hanako’s.’

According to S&M, the NP taido can be deleted because Hanako-no occupies DP SPEC,
parallel to (1a).
This DP SPEC requirement leads to the prediction that NP-ellipsis should not be
permitted if DP SPEC is not filled. This expectation is fulfilled. Given the assumption that
relative clauses are adjoined to NP, thus not in DP SPEC, Saito, Lin and Murasugi (2008)(henceforth SL&M) propose that Japanese relative clauses cannot trigger NP-ellipsis, as
exemplified in (6):(6)[[Taroo-ga
kinooatta] hito]-wa
yasashii ga,[[Hanako-ga-NOM yesterday saw person-TOP kindthough-NOMkinooatta] *(hito)]-wa
kowai.
yesterday saw *(person-TOP scary‘The person Taro saw yesterday is kind, but the person Hanako saw yesterday isscary.’(SL&M 2008: 263)

In this example, the NP hito ‘person’ cannot be elided because the relative clause is not in DP
SPEC. In essence, for S&M and SL&M, the contrast between (5) and (6) shows that only
arguments can trigger NP-ellipsis: There is an argument/adjunct asymmetry with respect tothe availability of NP-ellipsis.
However, following Abe (2006) and Kadowaki (2005), Takahashi (2011) claims thatJapanese relative clauses do allow NP-ellipsis. For instance, in (7a) syujyutsu ‘operation’ canbe absent in the second conjunct, as shown in (7b):2
1

Abbreviations used in this paper are as follows:
ACC = accusative, CL = classifier, DIST = distributive affix, GEN = genitive, NOM = nominative,
PASS = passive, RC = relative clause, TOP = topic.
2

Mihara’s (1994: 212) example, given (i), which involves the abstract noun syujyutsu ‘operation’,shows that Kamio’s (1983) condition that the pronominal no can only replace concrete nouns is too
restrictive:-320- 320 -On the Unavailability of NP-Ellipsis with Japanese Relative Clauses (Y. Miyamoto)(7)a. [[kinoo
okonawareta] syujyutsu]-wa kantan datta ga,[[kyoo[[yesterday was done
operation-TOP simple was though today
yoteisareteiru] syujyutsu]-wa kanari muzukashii.
is planned
operation-TOP very difficult‘(lit.) The operation that was done yesterday was simple, but the operation that isplanned today is very difficult.’
b. [[kinoo
okonawareta] syujyutsu]-wa kantan datta ga,[[kyoo[[yesterday was done
operation-TOP simple was though [[today
yoteisareteiru]-no ]-wa kanari muzukashii.
is planned-NO-TOP
very difficult

Likewise, kankei ‘relation’ can be missing in the second conjunct, as shown in (8b):3(i)[kinoo-nosyujyutsu]-wa kantan datta ga,[kyoo-no ]-wa
muzukashisoo da.
[ yesterday-GEN operation-TOP simple was though today-one-TOP difficult-seem is‘(lit.) Yesterday’s operation was simple, but today’s one seems difficult.’

See Section 6 for relevant discussion on Kamio’s (1983) condition on the pronominal no.
3

Takahashi’s (2011: 139) original example with kankei ‘relation’ is given in (i):(i)[[[aisatsu-suru]-dake]-nokankei]-wa yoi ga,[[[okane-ogreeting-do-only-GEN relation-TOP good though [[[money-ACC
kashikari-suru]-dake]-no ]-wa
yokunai.
borrowinglending-do-only-NO-TOP not good‘(lit.) The relation in which they only greet is good, but the relation in which they only borrowand lend money is not good.’

In (i), the relative clause is accompanied by dake ‘only.’ In order to avoid any potential intervening
factors with dake, this paper deals with examples without the element under question. Notice that if
dake is omitted in (i), as shown in (ii), the meaning of the second conjunct changes; it means thatborrowing and lending money is not good.
(ii) [[aisatsu-suru] kankei]-wa yoi ga,[[okane-okashikari -suru]-no ]-wa[[greeting-do relation-TOP good though [[money-ACC lendingborrowing-do-NO-TOP
yokunai.
not good‘The relation that they greet is good, but to lead and borrow money is not good.’-321- 321 -

2008

(8)

2012









a. [[amerika-ga
nihon-to kizuita] kankei]-wa ryookoo da ga,[[America-NOM Japan-with built
relation-TOP goodis though[[ pro tyuugoku-to kizukoo-to shiteiru] kankei]-wa saki-ga
China-withtrying to build
relation-TOP future-NOM
futoomei da.
unclear is‘The relation that the United States built with Japan has been good, but therelation that she is trying to build with China is unclear about its future.’
nihon-tokizuita] kankei]-wa ryookoo da ga,
b. ?[[amerika-ga[[America-NOM Japan-with built
relation-TOP goodis though[[ pro tyuugoku-to kizukoo-to-shiteiru]-no ]-wa saki-ga
China-withtrying to build-NO-TOP
future-NOM
futoomeida.
not obvious is

On the surface, these examples appear to show that Japanese relative clauses can trigger NPellipsis, contrary to SL&M’s claim. Accordingly, the grammatical contrast between (6) on the
one hand, and (7b) and (8b) on the other, clearly calls for further research examining thenature of relative clauses in Japanese. This paper, as a consequence, investigates whether
Japanese relative clauses allow NP-ellipsis. In addition, there appears to be one difference
between the former example and the latter examples. Only in (7b) and (8b), the relative
clauses are accompanied by no. These two issues are clearly interrelated, and this paper
addresses the status of the no attached to a relative clause in studying the availability of NPellipsis with a relative clause.
The paper is organized as follows: following this introduction, Section 2 clarifies the twoquestions to be raised in this paper; (1) whether Japanese permits NP-ellipsis triggered byrelative clauses, and (2) whether the no attached to a relative clause, as in (7b) and (8b), is the
Genitive Case marker or the pronominal no. Section 3 summarizes SL&M’s (2008) and
Takahashi’s (2011) mechanisms of NP-ellipsis, resulting in different answers to these twoquestions. SL&M deny the existence of the NP-ellipsis in question and no is the pronominal
no. Takahashi, on the other hand, argues for such an NP-ellipsis, and no is the Genitive Case
marker. In Section 4 to Section 6, we turn to provide three arguments for SL&M’s stance thatJapanese relative clauses cannot trigger NP-ellipsis and show that what appears to be an
instance of NP-ellipsis, in fact, involves the pronominal no. Section 4 shows that split andnon-linguistic antecedents are acceptable in cases where NP-ellipsis with a relative clauseappears to have taken place. This section also shows that sloppy interpretation is unavailable
in some cases where a relative clause appears to have triggered NP-ellipsis in Japanese, while
its Chinese counterpart does allow sloppy interpretation in the same context. The fact that
Chinese, but not Japanese, relative clauses easily yield sloppy interpretation is naturallyaccommodated under the hypothesis made by SL&M, and further supported by Miyamoto(2010), that Chinese relative clauses, but not their Japanese counterparts, make use of-322- 322 -On the Unavailability of NP-Ellipsis with Japanese Relative Clauses (Y. Miyamoto)

Kaynean (1994) relative clause formation. Section 5 discusses the nominal-internal
distributive interpretation of numeral quantifiers (NQs) with the distributive affix zutsu(Miyamoto 2009). Miyamoto argues that NQs with zutsu form a relative clause under thenominal-internal distributive reading. Miyamoto’s proposal then enables us to use theavailability of nominal-internal distributive interpretation as a test to see whether an
NQ+zutsu behaves as a relative clause. We show that there is a case where NP-ellipsis by the
relative clause formed by an NQ with zutsu would incorrectly create a configuration thatshould permit the reading in question. This over-generation is shown not to arise if NPellipsis is not available with Japanese relative clauses. Section 6 discusses Kamio’s (1983)
claim that abstract nouns cannot be replaced by the pronominal no. It will be concluded thatin examples such as (7b) and (8b), which appear to involve NP-ellipsis, the possibility of the
pronominal no is not fully excluded. Thereby, we maintain SL&M’s proposal on NP-ellipsis
based on Kamio’s condition. Finally, Section 7 contains concluding remarks.
2.

Where to Start: Murasugi (1991)

As highlighted in Section 1, we believe that the examination of the status of the no
attached to a relative clause, as boldfaced in (9), provides an indication of whether a relative
clause can trigger NP-ellipsis:(9)[[kinoookonawareta] syujyutsu]-wa kantan datta ga,[[kyoo[[yesterday was done
operation-TOP simple was though [[today
yoteisareteiru]-no ]-wa kanari muzukashii.
is planned-NO-TOP
very difficult‘The operation that was done yesterday was simple, but the operation that is planned
today is very difficult.’

Here, four possibilities illustrated in (10a-c), are considered for the structure of the subject,[RC kyoo yoteisareteiru]-no, of the second conjunct:(10)a. [[CP [TP … Relative Clause …]-no] e ](no = C)b. [[ … Relative Clause … ] no](no = Pronominal Relative Head)c. [[ … Relative Clause … ]-no e ](no = Genitive Case Marker)(i) The gap e is created by NP-ellipsis.
(ii) The gap e is the base-generated empty pronoun pro.
Among these four possibilities, Murasugi (1991) excludes the possibilities given in (10a) and(10cii).
Notice first that long-distance dependency is not possible in Japanese adjunct relative-323- 323 -

2008

2012









clauses. In (11), riyuu ‘reason’ cannot refer to the reason why Taro swam.
(11)

oyoida]-to] omotteiru] riyuu][NP [RC Hanako-ga [[Taroo-ga-NOM Taroo-NOM swam-that thinkreason‘the reason Hanako thinks that Taro swam’

This suggests that relative clauses cannot make use of Op-movement, making the intended
long-distance interpretation available. Based, in part on this fact, Saito (1985) and later
Murasugi (1991) argue that Japanese relative clauses are TP in category. Under the TP
hypothesis of relative clauses, the fact that the interpretation under question is unavailable in(11) is naturally expected because there is no CP SPEC available for the Op to be raised to.
Since Japanese relative clauses lack CP, there is also no C position the complementizer no
can occupy. Thus, (10a) is not an available option.
There is also a reason to cast doubt on (10cii) (Kadowaki 2005; Kitagawa and Ross
1982). It has been observed that the relative clause accompanied by no yields derogatory
connotation (Kuroda 1976-1977). Notice, for example, that the second conjunct of (12)connotes that the person whom Hanako saw yesterday is not someone who deserves respect,
and therefore, a conflict results between the derogatory connotation arising from the presenceof no and the honorific form of the verb.
kinooatta] sensei]-wa
suugaku-o oshieteirassyaru ga,(12) # [[Taroo-ga[[Taroo-NOM yesterday saw teacher-TOP math-ACC teachthough[[Hanako-ga
kinooatta]-no]-wa rika-ooshieteirassyaru.
[[Hanako-NOM yesterday saw-NO-TOP science-ACC teach‘The person Taro saw yesterday teaches math, but the person Hanako saw yesterday
teaches science.’
Importantly, the covert pronoun pro does not exhibit this derogatory connotation, as shown in
(13):
(13)

Tanaka-sensei-ga
suugaku-ooshieteirassyaru.
Tanaka-sensei-NOM math-ACC
teach
pro rika-mooshieteirassyaru.
science-also teach‘Prof. Tanaka teaches math. He also teaches science.’

The presence of the derogatory connotation in (12) thus leads to the exclusion of (10cii) as
well.
Murasugi’s (1991) contribution to our argument is essential, that NP-ellipsis is notavailable with Japanese relative clauses, and allows us to assume that (10a) and (10cii) are
not options available with Japanese relative clauses, leaving us with (10b) and (10ci).

-324- 324 -On the Unavailability of NP-Ellipsis with Japanese Relative Clauses (Y. Miyamoto)

SL&M’s proposal leads to (10b) since NP-ellipsis is not available with adjuncts in general,thus with relative clauses. Alternatively, Takahashi (2011) argues for (10ci).
3.

Can Relative Clauses Trigger NP-ellipsis?

Having explored the foundations of this paper, we are now ready to illustrate SL&M’s
and Takahashi’s, two competing proposals, and provide the theoretical basis for NP-ellipsis.
This section focuses on cases where NP-ellipsis appears to be triggered by a relative clause.
3.1.

Saito, Lin and Murasugi (2008)

Based on the comparative study of Chinese and Japanese relative clauses, Simpson(2002) and SL&M claim that Chinese relative clauses are of Kaynean (1994) type. The
essence of their proposal is illustrated by the example in (14).2(14)[[Wo zuotian
kanjian] de nanhai] bi [[ni zuotian kanjian] de[[I yesterday see
DE boythan [[you yesterday see
DE(nanhai)] geng youqian.
(boy
more rich‘The boy I saw yesterday is richer than the boy you saw yesterday.’(SL&M: 263)

Under the Simpson–SL&M proposal, the boldfaced DP has the structure given in (15).
(15)

DP
TP3

D

ni zuotian kanjian t1 D
de2

CP
NP1
nanhai

C
t3

C
t2

In (15), first, the relative head NP nanhai ‘boy’ is raised out of the relative clause TP to CP
SPEC, as shown in (16a). Second, de, which is generated in C, is raised to D, which makes
the SPEC’s of DP and CP “equidistant” from the CP complement position (Lin, Murasugi,
and Saito 2001).3 The head-movement in point is illustrated in (16b). Finally, the relative
clause TP is raised to DP SPEC, as shown in (16c).
(16)a. [DP [CP [NP nanhai]1[C[TP ni zuotian kanjian t1] de]]]-325- 325 -

2008

2012







b. [DP [D de2 [CP[NP nanhai]1 [C [TP ni zuotian kanjian t1] t2]]]]c. [DP [TP ni zuotian kanjian t1]3 [D de2 [CP [NP nanhai]1 [C t3 t2]]]]
Notice that Chinese relative clauses can trigger NP-ellipsis (see also Aoun and Li 2003;
Huang, Li, and Li 2009). For example, the boldfaced NP nanhai ‘boy’ can be elided in (14).
Under this Kaynean approach to Chinese relative clauses, the NP-ellipsis in question does notpose any problem for the argument/adjunct asymmetry introduced in Section 1, since TP is infact a complement of C in (15).
SL&M argue that Japanese relative clauses, on the other hand, are base-generated in an
NP-adjoined position, as illustrated in (17):4
(17)

DP
D’
NP
Relative ClauseDNP

Accordingly, an NP-adjoined relative clause cannot move to DP SPEC due to the prohibition
against A’-to-A movement (Chomsky 1973; May 1979; Fukui 1993, among others). Thus,
Japanese relative clauses cannot satisfy the DP SPEC requirement. As a result, NP-ellipsis is
not available with relative clauses in Japanese, as shown in (6), repeated here as (18):(18)[[Taroo-ga
kinooatta] hito]-wa
yasashii ga,[[Hanako-ga[[Taroo-NOM yesterday saw person-TOP kindthough [[Hanako-NOM
kinooatta] *(hito)]-wa kowai.
yesterday saw *(person-TOP scary‘The person Taro saw yesterday is kind, but the person Hanako saw yesterday isscary.’(SL&M 2008: 263)

If SL&M’s proposal is accurate, the remaining task is to account for the grammaticalityof examples such as (7b), repeated here as (19), which appear to support the hypothesis that
relative clauses do license NP-ellipsis in Japanese:4

See also Murasugi (2000a, b).

-326- 326 -On the Unavailability of NP-Ellipsis with Japanese Relative Clauses (Y. Miyamoto)(19)[[kinoookonawareta] syujyutsu]-wa kantan datta ga,[[kyoo[[yesterday was done
operation-TOP simple was though today
yoteisareteiru]-no ]-wa kanari muzukashii.
is planned-NO-TOP
very difficult‘(lit.) The operation that was done yesterday was simple, but the operation that isplanned today is very difficult.’

Between the two remaining possibilities; (10b) and (10ci), highlighted in Section 2, we are
led to choose the former under SL&M; no NP-ellipsis is possible with Japanese relative
clauses, and thus, the no attached to a relative clause must be the pronominal no.
Notice that the pronominal no requires the NP-modifier, as shown in the contrast
between (20a, b):5
(20)

no]-o
katta.
a. Taroo-ga[NP [AP takai]
Taroo-NOM
expensive one-ACC bought‘Taro bought an expensive one.’[NP no]-okatta.
b. * Taroo-ga
Taroo-NOM
one-ACC bought‘(lit.) Taro bought an one.’If Japanese relative clauses are adjoined to NP, it comes as no surprise that they can also
license the pronominal no. Thus, the licensing of the pronominal no is also naturallyaccommodated under SL&M’s proposal.
3.2. Takahashi (2011)
Takahashi (2011) argues that Japanese relative clauses do, however, license NP-ellipsis;
examples of which are repeated here as (21a, b):(21)a. [[kinoo
okonawareta] syujyutsu]-wa kantan datta ga,[[kyoo[[yesterday was done
operation-TOP simple was though [[today
yoteisareteiru] -no ]-wa kanari muzukashii.
is planned-NO-TOP
very difficult‘(lit.) The operation that was done yesterday was simple, but the operation that isplanned today is very difficult.’

5

See Murasugi (1991) for relevant discussion.

-327- 327 -

2008

2012







nihon-tokizuita] kankei]-wa ryookoo da ga,
b. ?[[amerika-ga[[America-NOM Japan-with built
relation-TOP goodis though[[ pro tyuugoku-to
kizukoo-to-shiteiru]-no ]-wa saki-ga
China -withtrying to build-NO-TOP
future-NOM
futoomeida.
not obvious is‘The relation that the United States built with Japan has been good, but therelation that she is trying to build with China is unclear about its future.’
As indicated with the brackets, syujyutsu ‘operation’ and kankei ‘relation’ can be absent.
Here, in order to exclude the possibility in (10b), Takahashi, following SL&M, uses theabstract nouns in his examples, assuming Kamio’s (1983) condition that abstract nouns
cannot be replaced by the pronominal no.6 Accordingly, for Takahashi, (21a, b), having theabstract nouns as the target of the ellipsis operation, necessarily involve NP-ellipsis.
Takahashi accounts for the availability of NP-ellipsis with Japanese relative clauses,
based on three assumptions:(22)a. A head with a Case-feature is a phase head.
b. Only complements of phase heads can undergo ellipsis.
c. Phase heads require edges when phase head complements undergo ellipsis.
(Takahashi 2011: 158)

How Takahashi’s proposal works is illustrated in (23):(23)

KP = phase
Specifiers/Adjuncts
NP

KP
K [CASE]First, Takahashi assumes that Kase Phrase (KP) is the highest nominal projection headed by aCase marker with a Case feature, [CASE], which needs to be valued. Second, some element
must be adjoined to KP when NP-ellipsis is intended. If these two conditions are met, the NP
complement can be elided. For instance, in (24a), the word sequence Hanako-no taido-o isassumed to have the structure given in (24b):

6

But see Section 6.

-328- 328 -On the Unavailability of NP-Ellipsis with Japanese Relative Clauses (Y. Miyamoto)(24)

a. Jiroo-wa [Taroo-no [taido]]-ohihanshita ga,
Yoshio-wa-TOP-GEN [attitude-ACC criticized though-TOPhihanshita.
[Hanako-no [NP taido]]-o-GEN attitude-ACC criticized‘Jiro criticized Taro’s attitude, but Yoshio criticized Hanako’s.’b.

KP = phase
Hanako-no

KP
NP

K [CASE]taidooIn (24b), the ACC Case marker projects KP with [CASE], and Hanako-no is adjoined to KP.
As a result, the NP taido can be elided.7
Importantly, Takahashi proposes that not only arguments but also adjuncts can act as a
KP-adjoined element that licenses NP-ellipsis, and therefore, relative clauses should also
license NP-ellipsis. According to Takahashi, this expectation is fulfilled, as already shown in(7b) and (8b). However, as the ungrammaticality of (25) shows, the prediction is not quite sostraightforward:(25) * [[Taroo-ga
kinooatta] hito]-wa
yasashii ga,[[Taroo-NOM yesterday saw person-TOP kindthough[[Hanako-ga
kinooatta] hito]-wa
kowai.
-NOM yesterday saw person-TOP scary‘The person Taro saw yesterday is kind, but the person Hanako saw yesterday isscary.’
Notice the lack of an obvious difference between (24b) and (26) below:(26)

KP = phase
Relative Clause

KPNP

K [CASE]

hito

wa

7

Takahashi (2011) also provides an alternative account for the availability of NP-ellipsis under theassumption that Genitive Case is structural. Although this alternative may have important implications
for the framework he assumes, this revision is not crucial for the purpose of this paper.

-329- 329 -

2008

2012







Observing the ungrammaticality of (25), Takahashi proposes that relative clauses (when they
are not followed by no) cannot license NP-ellipsis (Takahashi 2011: 188). In short, for
Takahashi, (25) is ungrammatical not because Japanese relative clauses cannot trigger NPellipsis, but because the Genitive Case marker no is not attached to the relative clause. As
expected, (25) drastically improves if no is attached to the relative clause, as shown in (27):(27)[[Taroo-ga
kinooatta] hito]-wa
yasashii ga,-NOM yesterday saw person-TOP kindthough[[Hanako-ga
kinooatta]-no ]-wa kowai.
-NOM yesterday saw-NO-TOP scary‘The person Taro saw yesterday is kind, but the person Hanako saw yesterday isscary.’

Accordingly, Takahashi suggests a curious restriction on NP-ellipsis: KP-adjoined elements
must bear Genitive Case ‘only’ when they license NP-ellipsis. A question naturally arises as
to why Genitive Case is required when the NP is elided, and it is prohibited when the NP
remains overt, as shown in (28).
kinooatta] hito]-wa
yasashii ga,(28) * [[Taroo-ga[[Taroo-NOM yesterday saw person-TOP kindthough[[Hanako-ga
kinooatta]-no hito]-wa
kowai.
[[Hanako-NOM yesterday saw-NO person-TOP scary‘The person Taro saw yesterday is kind, but the person Hanako saw yesterday isscary.’
Another curious condition Takahashi proposes is that when two or more elements which
can be adjoined to KP, are present, the lower one can be adjoined to NP. For instance, in(29a), A-san-no ‘Mr. A’s’ must be located within NP, as shown in (29b), so that it can bedeleted with the rest of the material in NP.
(29)a. [Hanako-no A-san-no hihan]-wa
iiga, [Taroo-no
A-san-no-GEN Mr. A-GEN criticism -TOP good though-GEN Mr. A-GEN
hihan]-wa
yoku-na-i.
criticism-TOP not good
‘Hanako’s criticisms of Mr. A is good, but Taro’s criticisms of Mr. A is not.’(Takahashi 2011: 161)

-330- 330 -On the Unavailability of NP-Ellipsis with Japanese Relative Clauses (Y. Miyamoto)b.

KP = phase
Hanako-no

KP
NP

K [CASE]Mr. A-no

NP

wa

hihan
Under Takahashi’s proposal, we are therefore left with another question of why such a
condition holds.
3.3. Summary
SL&M propose that only arguments can trigger NP-ellipsis while Takahashi argues that
not only arguments but also adjuncts license NP-ellipsis. Accordingly, the no attached to therelative clause receives different analyses; it must be the pronominal no under SL&M’s
proposal whereas it is the Genitive Case marker under Takahashi’s proposal. In the next three
sections, we present three arguments supporting SL&M’s proposal that NP-ellipsis cannot be
executed with a relative clause as its trigger.
4.

Antecedents

In this section, we focus on how the antecedent is determined in cases where NP-ellipsis
appears to have taken place. Specifically, we examine whether split and non-linguistic
antecedents are acceptable and whether sloppy interpretation is available in the cases underquestion.
4.1. Split and Non-Linguistic Antecedents
The first argument in favor of SL&M’s proposal comes from the availability of split andnon-linguistic antecedents.8 Notice that VP-ellipsis in English, for example, does not allow
split antecedents, as shown in (30):(30)

Taro can swim fast, and Hanako can run fast. *Jiro can [VP e ], too.

8

The two tests that are used in this section are owed to Kadowaki (2005). Kadowaki’s purpose wasto show that Japanese NP-ellipsis in general makes use of the schematic structure given in (10cii),
repeated here as (i):(i)[[RC … ]-no pro](no = Genitive Case marker)

We, however, do not share his conclusion, and instead, assume with Murasugi (1991) that (10cii) is
not tenable in Japanese NP-ellipsis. (see also Section 2)-331- 331 -

2008

2012







The elided VP cannot mean that Jiro can both swim and run fast. By the same token, NPellipsis also does not allow split antecedents, as shown in (31):(31)

Taro’s book of physics was very expensive, and Hanako’s book of chemistry was also
very expensive. *Jiro’s [ NP e ] were both rather cheap, too.

The elided NP cannot be interpreted as Jiro’s book of physics and his book of chemistry.
These examples show that the unavailability of split antecedents is an indication that ellipsis
takes place.
Now, if what appears to be Japanese NP-ellipsis with a relative clause is a genuine
instance of NP-ellipsis, we predict that split antecedents are not acceptable. This prediction,
however, is not borne out, as shown in (32):(32)[(sensei-ga
taihen oisogashii-node,) [[raisyuu-no
Tanaka-sensei-no[(Prof. -NOM very busy-because[[next week-GEN Tanaka-Prof. -GENkooen]-wa ichi-ji-kan-oyoteishiteiru]]. [sono ato-no
lecture-TOP one-hour-period-ACC has scheduled that after-GEN
kyoodoo kenkyuu-nikansuru uchiawase]-mo ichi-ji-kan-oyoteishiteiru.
joint
research- concerning meeting-also
one-hour-period-ACC has scheduled
ippoo,[[Satoo-sensei-ga
ohikiuke-ni natta]-no ]-wa
on the other hand
-Prof.-NOM accepted
natta]-NO-TOP
ni-ji-kan-zutsu-ga
yoteisareteiru.
two-hour-period-DIST-NOM is scheduled‘(lit.) Because Prof. Tanaka has been very busy, his lecture next week is scheduled tobe (just) one hour long. The meeting concerning their joint research after that is alsoscheduled to be one hour long. On the other hand, the lecture and the meeting
concerning their joint research that Prof. Sato has accepted to be responsible for areboth scheduled to be two hour long.’

Importantly, the sentence concerning Prof. Sato contains the distributive affix zutsu, which
requires a plural element to distribute over; accordingly, as given in the English translation,
this sentence means that Prof. Sato is planning to give a two-hour lecture and a two-hour
meeting regarding the joint research project. This example therefore shows that what appears
to be a case with NP-ellipsis with a relative clause permits split antecedents. It is not clear
how this fact can be accommodated under Takahashi’s NP-ellipsis-based proposal. Noticethat the parallelism requirement for ellipsis cannot be met in (32), and the entities underquestion must be identified contextually.
There are even cases where no linguistic antecedent is present, and the sentences remain
grammatical, as exemplified in (33):-332- 332 -On the Unavailability of NP-Ellipsis with Japanese Relative Clauses (Y. Miyamoto)(33)(Context)
It was the day for a meeting to decide a topic for the joint research project. After the
meeting, one student asked his friends:[[Kita-san-ga
teianshita]-no ]-wa
-Mr.-NOM proposed-NO-TOP

doo omotta. muzukashi-sugiru-yo-na.
how thought difficult-too‘What did you think about the topic that Mr. Kita proposed? It’s too difficult, isn’t it?’In (33), what Mr. Kita proposed is a possible topic for the joint research project. No obvious
linguistic antecedent is present here, and the sentence is still fully acceptable. This example
thus constitutes further support for the view that the interpretation of what appears to be NPellipsis triggered by a relative clause is context-dependent, and the antecedent does not haveto be linguistically present.
In short, the fact that the availability of split and non-linguistic antecedents in examples
with what appears to be NP-ellipsis triggered by a relative clause shows that independent of
whether a genuine NP-ellipsis is available with Japanese relative clauses, the option of the
pronominal no, that is, (10b) in Section 2, must be available.
4.2. Strict/sloppy Interpretation
The claim that the antecedent is determined contextually is also supported by the factthat there are cases where sloppy interpretation is difficult to obtain with the cases underquestion.
Notice first that typical NP-ellipsis examples are ambiguous between strict and sloppy
interpretation, although one interpretation is favored over the other depending on context. For
example, (34) is ambiguous between the two readings under question.
(34)[Taroo-no [[ jibun-no otooto]-no
hihan]]-waii
ga,[Taroo-GEN [[self -GEN younger brother-GEN criticism -TOP good though[Jiroo-noe ]-wa yoku-na-i.
[Jiroo-GEN-TOP not good
‘Taro’s criticisms of his own younger brother is good, but Jiro’s is not.’In (34), the second conjunct can describe the situation in which Jiro also criticized Taro’s
younger brother; this is an instance of strict interpretation, but can also mean that Jiro also
criticized his own younger brother, and represents sloppy interpretation.
The ambiguity in (34) is reminiscent of the strict/sloppy ambiguity that we observe in
VP-deletion. For example, (35b), which follows (35a), is ambiguous between the same two
types of interpretation:-333- 333 -

2008

(35)

2012









a. Hanako criticized her idea.
b. Kazuko did [VP e ], too.

(35b) can mean that Kazuko also criticized Hanako’s idea (strict reading). Alternatively, it
can also refer to the situation that Kazuko also criticized her own idea (sloppy reading). Thus,
the parallelism between (34) and (35b) constitutes evidence for the hypothesis that NPellipsis is involved in (34).
Provided that the presence of the sloppy interpretation indicates that ellipsis has takenplace, we predict that if Japanese relative clauses can trigger NP-ellipsis, sloppy interpretation
be present, parallel to (35b). With this prediction in mind, we are now ready to examine theavailability of sloppy reading in cases of what appears to be NP-ellipsis triggered by arelative clause.
4.2.1. Japanese Relative Clauses(36) is a case in point:99(i)(i) represents the case where a phrase containing jibun ‘self’ precedes a relative clause:
Taroo-wa [[[jibun-no ani]-no[[LI-ni saitaku-sareta] ronbun]]-ga ichiban da]-to-TOP [[[self-GEN elder brother-GEN-by was accepted paper-NOM bestis-thatomotteiru.
think‘Taro thinks that his own elder brother’s paper that was accepted by LI is the best.’

The reflexive necessarily refers to Taro here. Of our interest is which example in (ii) can follow (i)describing the situation in which Jiro also thinks that his own elder brother’s paper in L(inguistic)
I(nquiry) is the best. (iia, b) clearly allow this sloppy interpretation. (iic) is a case in point.
(ii) a.

Jiroo-mo [[[jibun-no ani]-no[[LI-ni saitaku-sareta] ronbun]]-ga-by was accepted paper-NOM-also [[[self-GEN elder brother-GEN
ichiban da]-to omotteiru.
bestis-that think‘Jiro also thinks that his own elder brother’s paper that was accepted by LI is the best.’b.

Jiroo-mo [[[jibun-no ani]-no[[LI-ni saitaku-sareta]-no]]-ga-by was accepted-NO-NOM-also [[[self-GEN elder brother-GEN
ichiban da]-to omotteiru.
bestis-that thinkc.

Jiroo-mo [[[LI-ni saitaku-sareta]-no]-ga-also [[[LI-by was accepted-NO-NOM

ichiban da]-to omotteiru.
bestis-that think

The interpretation that the native speakers of Japanese reported is that Jiro also thinks that someone’s
paper in LI is the best. The most salient interpretation is the strict interpretation. However, in thecontext in which Jiro believes his own elder brother the best linguist, (iic) could be about Jiro’s own-334- 334 -On the Unavailability of NP-Ellipsis with Japanese Relative Clauses (Y. Miyamoto)elder brother’s paper in LI. In other words, (iic) can be about the paper in LI written by someone
salient in the given context. Also, (iiia, b) refer to Jiro’s own elder brother’s paper in JEAL whereas(iiic) is about the paper in JEAL written by someone under discussion.
(iii) a.

Jiroo-wa [[[jibun-no ani]-no[[JEAL-ni saitaku-sareta] ronbun]]-ga-TOP [[[self-GEN elder brother-GEN [[JEAL-by was accepted paper-NOM
ichiban da]-to omotteiru.
bestis-that think‘Jiro thinks that his own elder brother’s paper that was accepted by JEAL is the best.’b.

Jiroo-wa [[[jibun-no ani]-no[[JEAL-ni saitaku-sareta]-no]]-ga
Jiroo-TOP [[self-GEN elder brother-GEN [[JEAL-by was accepted-NO -NOM
ichiban da]-to omotteiru.
bestis-that thinkc.

Jiroo-wa [[[JEAL-ni saitaku-sareta]-no]-ga
ichiban da]-to omotteiru.
-TOP [[[JEAL-by was accepted-NO-NOM bestis-that think

Suppose that (iva, b) were the structure of (iic) and (iiic). Then, under the hypothesis that Japaneserelative clauses can trigger NP-ellipsis, we are forced to assume that these two examples must involve“deletion” of discontinuous elements:(iv) a.

b.

Jiroo-mo [[jibun-no
ani-no[[LI-ni saitaku-sareta]-no ronbun]]-ga-also [[self-GEN elder brother-GEN [[LI-by was accepted-NO paper-NOM
ichiban da]-to omotteiru.
bestis-that think
Jiroo-wa [[jibun-no ani-no[[JEAL-ni saitaku-sareta]-no ronbun]]-ga-TOP [[self-GEN elder brother-GEN [[JEAL-by was accepted-NO paper-NOM
ichiban da]-to omotteiru.
bestis-that think

Given the reasonable assumption that discontinuous elements cannot be the target of an ellipsis
operation, (iva, b) cannot be the structure of (iic) and (iiic). Rather, we have to assume that thereflexive is not present in (iic) and (iiic), as shown in (va, b):(v) a.

b.

Jiroo-mo [[[LI-ni saitaku-sareta]-no]-ga-also [[[LI-by was accepted-NO-NOM

ichiban da]-to omotteiru.
bestis-that think

Jiroo-wa [[[JEAL-ni saitaku-sareta]-no]-ga
ichiban da]-to omotteiru.
-TOP [[[JEAL-by was accepted-NO -NOM bestis-that think

Accordingly, the NP ronbun may be deleted. If (va,b) are correct structures for (iic) and (iiic), it is not
surprising that the paper in LI or JEAL could be written by someone salient in the context, consistent
with the judgments of the subjects.
Under the SL&M’s proposal, on the other hand, we assume that (iic) and (iiic) are instances ofthe pronominal -no. Consequently, the author of the paper in LI or JEAL must also be given
contextually. Thus, The word sequence with jibun ‘self’ preceding a relative clause does not provide
any evidence for either of the proposals.

-335- 335 -

2008

(36)

2012









Taroo-wa [[[LI-ni saitaku-sareta] [[jibun-no ani]-noronbun]]-ga-TOP-by was accepted [[self-GEN elder brother-GEN paper-NOM
ichiban da]-to omotteiru.
bestis-that think‘Taro thinks that his own elder brother’s paper that was accepted by LI is the best.’

As a continuation to (36), (37a-c) and (38a-c) are all natural:(37)

a. Jiroo-mo [[[LI-ni saitaku-sareta] [[jibun-no ani]-noronbun]]-ga-also-in was accepted [[self -GEN elder brother-GEN paper-NOM
ichiban da]-to omotteiru.
best
is -that think‘Jiro also thinks that his own elder brother’s paper that was accepted by LI is thebest.’
b. Jiroo-mo [[[LI-ni saitaku-sareta] [[jibun-no ani]-no]]-ga-also-by was accepted [[self -GEN elder brother-NO-NOM
ichiban da]-to omotteiru.
best
is -that thinkc. Jiroo-mo [[[LI-ni saitaku-sareta]-no ]-ga
ichiban da]-to-also-by was accepted-NO-NOM bestis-that(38)

a. Jiroo-wa [[[JEAL-ni saitaku-sareta] [[jibun-no-TOP-by was accepted [[self-GEN
ronbun]]-ga
ichiban da]-to omotteiru.
paper-NOM
best
is-that thinkomotteiru.
thinkani]-noelder brother-GEN‘Jiro thinks that his own elder brother’s paper that was accepted by JEAL is thebest.’
b. Jiroo-wa [[[JEAL-ni saitaku-sareta] [[jibun-no ani]-no]]-ga-TOP-by was accepted [[self-GEN elder brother-NO-NOM
ichiban da]-to omotteiru.
bestis-that thinkc. Jiroo-wa [[[JEAL-ni saitaku-sareta]-no ]-ga
ichiban da]-to omotteiru.
-TOP-by was accepted-NO-NOM bestis-that think
However, there is a difference between (37a, b) and (38a, b) on the one hand, and (37c) and(38c) on the other. The former only allow sloppy interpretation due to the presence of thereflexive jibun; Jiro refers to his own elder brother’s paper, accepted by LI or JEAL. In
contrast, according to the informants, the latter refer to someone’s paper in LI or JEAL. The
most likely interpretation as a continuation of (36) is that Jiro is also thinking about Taro’s-336- 336 -On the Unavailability of NP-Ellipsis with Japanese Relative Clauses (Y. Miyamoto)elder brother’s paper. Of significance is the fact that it is very difficult to understand thesesentences as Jiro referring to his own elder brother’s paper. That is, (37c) and (38c) do notallow sloppy interpretation as easily as the typical NP-ellipsis example in (34) does.
The fact that the sloppy interpretation is difficult to obtain in (37c) and (38c) issurprising under Takahashi’s NP-ellipsis-based proposal. For example, Takahashi would
assign the structure in (39) to the embedded subject of (38c):(39)

KP = phase
RC

NO

JEAL-ni saitaku-sareta

KP
NP

K [CASE]

self’s elder brother-noNPgaronbunAs highlighted in Section 3.2, Takahashi assumes that when NP-ellipsis is intended, KPspecifiers/adjuncts can be inside NP, being a target of the ellipsis operation. Thus, in (39), it
is of no surprise that jibun-no ani-no ‘self-GEN elder brother-GEN’ can also be elided.
Consequently, the unavailability of the sloppy reading in (37c) and (38c) constitutes evidence
against his approach.
In contrast, under SL&M’s proposal, (37c) and (38c) are instances of the pronominal no.
Thus, the embedded subject of (37c), repeated here as (40a), for example, should have thestructure given in (40b):(40)a. Jiroo-mo [[[LI-ni saitaku-sareta]-no ]-ga
-also [[[LI-by was accepted-NO-NOM

ichiban da]-tobest
is-thatomotteiru.
think‘Jiro also thinks that the one that was accepted by LI is the best.’
b.

NP
RC

NP

LI-ni saitaku-sareta

noc. the one that was accepted by LI
Given that (40b) is the Japanese counterpart of (40c), it comes as no surprise that the authorof the paper must be identified from the context. In the above examples, (36) introduces
Taro’s elder brother’s paper into the context, and accordingly, the most salient interpretationof the examples in (37c) and (38c) would be about Taro’s elder brother’s paper(s). At the-337- 337 -

2008

2012









same time, if the right context is conceived of, the pseudo sloppy interpretation, which a few
of our informants allowed, may also be anticipated.
It is worth noting at this point that the clear-cut sloppy interpretation is not available in(37c) and (38c) suggests that Japanese relative clauses do not make use of Kaynean relativeclause formation (see Section 3.1). In the following section, we would like to develop ourinterpretations by comparing the behavior of Japanese relative clauses with their Chinesecounterparts. Of importance here is the proposal made by SL&M and supported by Miyamoto(2010) that Chinese relative clauses do trigger NP-ellipsis, making use of Kaynean headraising. If this is accurate, we predict that the Chinese counterparts of (37c) and (38c) permit
the sloppy interpretation, in contrast to these Japanese examples.
4.2.2. Chinese Relative Clauses
Cases in point are given in (42a, b) and (43a, b), which follow (41): (42a) is the Chinesecounterpart of (37a) whereas (42b) is the Chinese counterpart of (38a):10(41)

Zhangsan renwei [[[beiLI jieshou de] ziji-degege-delunwun]think [[[PASS LI accept DE self-GEN elder brother-DE paper
shi zui-hao-de].
be best‘Zhangsan thinks that his elder brother’s paper which is accepted by LI is the best.’(42)

a. Lisi ye renwei [[[beiLI jieshou de] ziji-degege-detoo think [[[PASS LI accept DE self-GEN elder brother-DE
lunwun] shi zui-hao-de].
paper
be best‘Lisi also thinks that his elder brother’s paper which is accepted by LI is the best.’b. Lisi renwei [[[beiJEAL jieshou de] ziji-degege-dethink [[[PASS JEAL accept DE self-GEN elder brother-DE
lunwun] shi zui-hao-de].
paper
be best‘Lisi thinks that his elder brother’s paper which is accepted by JEAL is the best.’

Here, all the examples contain the reflexive ziji ‘self’ without NP-ellipsis, accordingly, sloppy
interpretation is forced in these examples.
Of importance is the fact that sloppy interpretation is also available in (43a, b), theChinese counterparts of (37c) and (38c):

10

I thank J. Lin for Chinese data and their grammatical judgments.

-338- 338 -On the Unavailability of NP-Ellipsis with Japanese Relative Clauses (Y. Miyamoto)(43)

LI jieshou de] shi zui-hao-de].
a. ? Lisi ye renwei [[beitoo think
PASS LI accept DE be best
‘Lisi also thinks that his own elder brother’s paper which is accepted by LI is thebest.’
b. ?Lisi renwei [[bei JEAL jieshou de] shi zui-hao-de].
think [[PASS JEAL accept DE be best
‘Lisi thinks that his own elder brother’s paper which is accepted by JEAL is thebest.’

We take the contrast between Japanese and Chinese relative clauses with respect to theavailability of sloppy interpretation to be further support for SL&M’s hypothesis that there isa structural difference in relative clauses between these two languages. For our purpose, thiscross-linguistic contrast with respect to the availability of sloppy interpretation provides
additional support for the hypothesis that Japanese relative clauses do not trigger NP-ellipsis.
4.3. Summary
We have provided evidence that split and non-linguistic antecedents are allowed in caseswith what appears to involve NP-ellipsis with Japanese relative clauses. We have also shownthat Japanese relative clauses do not readily allow sloppy interpretation in some cases whereNP-ellipsis appears to have taken place. By way of contrast, Chinese relative clauses dopermit the interpretation under question in exactly the same context. We therefore conclude
that Japanese relative clause do not license NP-ellipsis while their Chinese counterparts cando so. This contrast is straightforwardly accounted for under Simpson/SL&M’s proposal.
5.

Nominal-Internal Distributive Interpretation

We turn to another argument to support the hypothesis that Japanese relative clauses do
not license NP-ellipsis. This time, the argument comes from the availability of nominalinternal distributive interpretation, discussed in Miyamoto (2009).
5.1. Relative Clause-based Analysis of Nominal-Internal Distributive Interpretation
This section begins with an explanation of what nominal-internal distributive
interpretation is, along with Miyamoto’s (2009) analysis. As with cases with NQs, NQs withzutsu can appear in three different positions, as shown in (44):(44)

a. Taroo-ga
ni-satsu-zutsu-no
hon-o
katta (-koto)-NOM two-CL-DIST-GEN book-ACC bought (-fact)‘Taro and Hanako bought two books each.’-339- 339 -

2008

2012









b. Taroo-ga
hon ni-satsu-zutsu-okatta (-koto)
Taroo-NOM book two-CL-DIST-ACC bought (-fact)c. Taroo-ga
hon-oni-satsu-zutsu katta (-koto)
Taroo-NOM book-ACC two-CL-DIST bought (-fact)
These examples permit various interpretations including (45a) and (45b). Of significance isthe fact that (45c) is available only in (44a). Miyamoto names the interpretation in (41c) ‘thenominal-internal distributive interpretation.’(45)

a. Taro bought two books each three weeks ago and last week.
b. Taro bought two books each at the bookstore in New York and the bookstore in
Boston.
c. Taro bought the books in twos.

Given the assumption that the distributive affix always requires an element to distribute overin syntax, the nominal-internal distributive interpretation, too, necessitates such an element.
Miyamoto claims that, under the interpretation in (45c), the distribution over the covert
locative pro takes place within the object NP. Given the assumption that locative pro is anargument of Tense (with an eventive verb), the presence of locative pro requires the presenceof TP. This amounts to saying that ni-satsu-zutsu ‘two-CL-DIST’ is a relative clause.
Accordingly, the structure of the object NP is as shown in (46):
(46)

NP
TP

NP
T’

pro1
VP
Locative pro

hon1
T

V’

DistP
Distributive Op

V
Dist’ covert copula

QP

Dist

ni-satsu

zutsu

Within the relative clause TP, the distributive operator is raised and adjoined to the locative
pro, which enables the distribution of sets of two books over the locations to be possible.

-340- 340 -On the Unavailability of NP-Ellipsis with Japanese Relative Clauses (Y. Miyamoto)

Miyamoto argues that this relative clause realizes the nominal-internal distributive
interpretation in the same way that distributive interpretation is possible in (47) in spite of thefact that there is no overt NP over which distribution of sets of two books can take place.
(47)

hon-gani-satsu-zutsu da.
book-NOM two-CL-DIST is‘The books are in twos.’

5.2. Over-Generation of Nominal-Internal Distributive Interpretation
Considering that the presence of nominal-internal distributive reading indicates that theNQ-zutsu forms a relative clause, we examine (48):(48)

zenzen ure-nai-node,sono-mise-wa, (san-bon-zutsu-no enpitsu-de-wa naku,)
at all sell-not-because that -store-TOP (three-CL-DIST-NO pencil-for-TOP not
go-hon-zutsu-no
enpitsu-no henkyaku-o kimeta.
five-CL-DIST-NO pencil-GEN return-ACC decided‘That store decided to return the pencils in fives(, not the pencils in threes) because
they did not sell well.’In (48), the intended nominal-internal distributive interpretation is clearly available. Thismeans that san-bon-zutsu-no and go-hon-zutsu-no form a relative clause in this example.
Now, compare (48) with (49) below:(49)zenzen ure-nai-node,sono-mise-wa, (san-bon-zutsu-no enpitsu-de-wa naku,)
at all sell-not-because that -store-TOP (three-CL-DIST-NO pencil-for-TOP not
go-hon-zutsu-no
henkyaku-o kimeta.
five-CL-DIST-NO return-ACC decided‘(intended) That store decided to return the pencils in fives(, not the pencils in threes)
because they did not sell well.’Of significance is the fact that (49) does not allow the intended nominal-internal distributive
interpretation. The interpretation salient in this example is that the store decided to return fivepencils a time. The question to be raised here is why the intended nominal-internal
distributive interpretation is prohibited in this example. This question is particularly importantsince under the NP-ellipsis-based account, i.e., Takahashi’s proposal, we could interpret (49)as having the NP enpitsu deleted in (50):(50)

zenzen ure-nai-node,sono-mise-wa, (san-bon-zutsu-no enpitsu-de-wa naku,)
at all sell-not-because that -store-TOP (three-CL-DIST-NO pencil-for-TOP not[go-hon-zutsu-no enpitsu] henkyaku-o kimeta.
[five-CL-DIST-NO pencil return-ACC decided-341- 341 -

2008

2012









The following determines how such an interpretation might be possible.
What needs clarifying in (50) is the status of the no attached to go-hon-zutsu. Given
Takahashi’s condition on NP-ellipsis that KP adjuncts must bear Genitive Case when theysurvive ellipsis, go-hon-zutsu, being a relative clause, must receive Genitive Case. Thus,
under his proposal, no must be an instance of the Genitive Case marker. This is in accordancewith Watanabe’s (2010) suggestion that the appearance of no is regulated by themorphological properties. As acknowledged in SL&M’s note 1, cited by Watanabe, NoInsertion Rule, shown in (51), is morphological in nature: (-tense) means no overt realizationof tense. Accordingly, this results in the contrast between (52a) and (52b):(51)[NP … XP(-tense) N]  [NP … XP(-tense) Mod N], where Mod = no(52)

a. Taroo-ga
syujinkoo-no monogatari
Taroo-NOM protagonist-NO story‘a story in which Taro is the protogonist’
b. Taroo-ga
syujinkoo dearu(*-no) monogatari
Taroo-NOM protagonist is-NO story(SL&M: 250)

The same contrast obtains with NQ+zutsu, as shown in (53a, b):(53)

a. go-hon-zutsu-no enpitsu
five-CL-DIST-NO pencil‘the pencils in fives’
b. go-hon-zutsu dearu(*-no) enpitsu
five-CL-DIST are-NO pencil

We might then assume that go-hon-zutsu is subject to (51) and the Genitive Case marker, no,is attached to this relative clause.
Furthermore, provided that the overt/covert distinction plays a crucial role in (51), if the
NP enpitsu is elided, there seems no reason to supply no to this deleted NP. This is parallel tothe fact that (54b), but not (54c), can follow (54a):11
11

Based on the contrast between (ia) and (ib), Watanabe (2010) suggests that when two linking
elements exist, one of them must be deleted.

(i)

a.

go-nin-no
mendoo-ofive-CL-NO care-ACC

mi-nakerebanaranai.
see-must‘I have to take care of five (students)’-342- 342 -On the Unavailability of NP-Ellipsis with Japanese Relative Clauses (Y. Miyamoto)(54)

a. Taroo-wa Hanako-no sankoosyo-okarita.
Taroo-TOP Hanako-NO reference book-ACC borrowed‘Taro borrowed Hanako’s reference book.’b. Taroo-wa (kanojyo-no) nooto-mokarita.
Taroo-TOP (her ojyo-NO notebook-also borrowed‘Taro borrowed her notebook.’
nooto-mokarita.
c. * Taroo-wa-no
Taroo-TOP-NO notebook-also borrowed

Accordingly, under the NP-ellipsis-based account, (48) should be changed to (49) with therelative head elided, as shown in (50). Since go-hon-zutsu-no constitutes a relative clause, we
now incorrectly predict that the nominal-internal distributive interpretation be available withthe word order sequence given in (49) as well as in (48). Accordingly, the fact that theintended distributive reading is absent in (49) provides another argument against Takahashi’s
NP-ellipsis-based account.12
b. * go-nin-no-no
mendoo-ofive-CL-NO-NO care-ACC

mi-nakerebanaranai.
see-must

12

Notice that the intended nominal-internal distributive interpretation is available in (i):(i)

zenzen ure-nai-node,sono-mise-wa, (san-bon-zutsu-no-de-wa
naku,)
at all sell-not-because that -store -TOP three-CL-DIST-one-for-TOP not
go-hon-zutsu-no-no
henkyaku-o kimeta.
five-CL-DIST-one-GEN return-ACC decided‘That store decided to return the ones in fives(, not the ones in threes) because they did not sell
well.’

It is not clear from Takahashi’s discussion whether he allows the pronoun no to appear in thisparticular example. Conversely, under SL&M, a relative clause, being adjoined to NP, should be able
to license pronoun no, as noted in Section 3.1: accordingly, go-hon-zutsu can form a relative clause in(i) with the structure in (ii) below, and this example permits the nominal-internal distributive
interpretation.
(ii) [NP [NP [RC go-hon-zutsu]-no]-no henkyaku]
five-CL-DIST-NO-NO return
The no that attaches to the relative clauses is an instance of pronominal no. Here the NO-reduction
rule (Kamio 1983) deletes the Genitive no, attached to the relative clause, as illustrated in (iii):(iii) [NP [RC go-hon-zutsu]-no no]Then, the Genitive Case marker no is attached to this NP, due to the NO-Insertion Rule in (51). In (i),in contrast to (49), therefore, go-hon-zutsu can behave as a relative clause; accordingly, the intended
interpretation is correctly expected.

-343- 343 -

2008

2012









Under SL&M, by way of comparison, since NP-ellipsis is not possible with relative
clauses, thus with go-hon-zutsu, (49) cannot be understood to involve the elision of the NP
enpitsu. In addition, the floating quantifier option is also excluded in this particular context,
given the fact that numeral floating quantifiers in general cannot appear inside the nominal
projection. For instance, (55b) is ungrammatical, in contrast to (55a):(55)

a. Taroo-wa sankoosyo-o
san-satsu katta.
Taroo-TOP reference book-ACC three-CL bought‘Taro borrowed Hanako’s reference book.’(san-satsu(-no)) henkyaku-ob. * Taroo-wa sankoosyo-no
Taroo-TOP reference book-NO (three-CL (-NO) return-ACC

shita.
did‘Taro returned three reference books.’
Consequently, among the three positions for an NQ with zutsu in (44), (49) must be
understood as (56) under SL&M:(56)

zenzen ure-nai-node,sono-mise-wa, (san-bon-zutsu-no enpitsu-de-wa naku,)
at all sell-not-because that -store-TOP (three-CL-DIST-NO pencil-for-TOP not[pro go-hon-zutsu]-no henkyaku-o kimeta.
five-CL-DIST-NO return-ACC decided‘(intended) That store decided to return the pencils in fives(, not the pencils in threes)
because they did not sell well.’(56) enables a variety of interpretations, but not the nominal-internal distributive
interpretation. One possible interpretation is of the distribution of sets of five pencils overtimes. Crucially, SL&M’s proposal correctly predicts the absence of the nominal-internal
distributive interpretation in (49).
5.3. Summary
This section has shown that if relative clauses could trigger NP-ellipsis, the nominalinternal distributive interpretation would be over-generated in sentences such as (49). Under
SL&M, what appears to be a case with NP-ellipsis is a case with the schematic structure
given in (57):(57)[DistP Distributive Op [Dist’ [QP pro NQ]-zutsu]]-Case Marker

Under Miyamoto (2009), this structure correctly predicts the absence of the nominal-internal
distributive interpretation.
The fact that the positions available for NQs-zutsu are equated to those of NQs implies
that what appears to involve NP-ellipsis triggered by a NQ is also an instance of theschematic structure given in (58a) in examples like (58b):-344- 344 -On the Unavailability of NP-Ellipsis with Japanese Relative Clauses (Y. Miyamoto)(58) a. [QP [Q’ pro NQ]]-Case Marker
b. [go-nin-no
mendoo]-ofive-CL-GEN care-ACC

mi-nakerebanaranai.
see-must‘I have to take care of five.’(Watanabe 2010: 65)
However, the detailed examination of such cases is beyond the scope of this paper, and leaves
issues relating to the possibility of QP-triggered NP-ellipsis for future research.13
6.

Kamio’s (1983) Condition on Pronominal NO

The arguments presented in the previous two sections lead to the conclusion that relative
clauses cannot trigger NP-ellipsis and the no attached to the relative clause in Takahashi’s
examples must be analyzed as the pronominal no. However, and importantly, Takahashi uses
abstract nouns for the target of NP-ellipsis, assuming Kamio’s (1983) condition that statesthat an abstract noun cannot be replaced by the pronominal no. According to Takahashi,
therefore, his examples must have involved NP-ellipsis. The purpose of the current section isto reexamine the properties of nouns Takahashi assumes are abstract nouns, and suggests that
nothing prevents the pronominal no from appearing in Takahashi-type examples.
Kamio (1983) proposes that the pronominal no can stand for concrete nouns, but not for
abstract nouns. Kamio gives the following examples to illustrate this generalization:(59)

a. [RC katai sinnen-omotta] hito
firm conviction-ACC had
person‘the person with a firm conviction’motta] hito
b. * [RC katai no-ofirm one-ACC have person‘(intended) the one with a firm conviction’In (59b), the abstract noun sinnen ‘conviction’ is replaced by the pronominal no, and this
NP/DP is ungrammatical.
Based on Kamio’s (1983) restriction on the pronominal no, S&M provide examples with
an abstract noun for the target of ellipsis. They thus ensure that their examples are genuine
instances of NP-ellipsis. One instance in (30), repeated here as (60), is where the abstract
noun hihan ‘criticism’ is used.

13

See Ochi (2012), S&M, SL&M, Takahashi (2011), and Watanabe (2010) for discussion on theavailability of NP-ellipsis to be triggered by numeral quantifiers.

-345- 345 -

2008

(60)

2012









[Taroo-no[jibun-no shinyuu]-nohihan]-wa
iiga,-GEN [self-GEN close friend -GEN criticism -TOP is good though[Jiroo-noe ]-wa yoku-na-i.
]-TOP is not good
[Jiroo-GEN‘Taro’s criticisms of his own close friend is good, but Jiro’s is not.’Given Kamio’s condition, no of Jiroo-no must be understood as the Genitive Case marker,
not the pronominal no; NP-ellipsis must have taken place in (60).
In contrast, since relative clauses cannot trigger NP-ellipsis, the pronominal no is the
only option available in (61b), derived from (61a):(61)a. [[Hanako-ga
sensei-ni miseta] taido]-waiiga,-NOM teacher-to showed attitude-TOP good though[[Taroo-ga(sensei-ni) miseta] taido]-wa
yoku nai.
-NOM (teacher-to) showed attitude-TOP good not‘The attitude with which Hanako showed to her teacher is good, but the attitudewith which Taro showed to his teacher is not good.’b. * [[Hanako-ga
sensei-ni miseta] taido]-waiiga,-NOM teacher-to attend attitude-TOP good though[[Taroo-ga(sensei-ni) miseta]-no ]-wa yoku nai.
-NOM (teacher-to) attend-NO-TOP good not

However, the abstract noun taido ‘attitude’ cannot be replaced by the pronominal no in thisexample, due to Kamio’s condition. As a result, (61b) is ungrammatical.
Now, the question is why (7b) and (8b), repeated here as (62b) and (63b), aregrammatical in spite of the fact that the abstract nouns syujyutsu ‘operation’ and kankei‘relation’ are used.
(62)a. [[kinoo
okonawareta] syujyutsu]-wa kantan datta ga,[[kyoo[[yesterday was done
operation-TOP simple was though [[today
yoteisareteiru] syujyutsu]-wa kanari muzukashii.
is planned
operation-TOP very difficult‘(lit.) The operation that was done yesterday was simple, but the operationthat is planned today is very difficult.’
b. [[kinoo
okonawareta] syujyutsu]-wa kantan datta ga,[[kyoo[[yesterday was done
operation-TOP simple was though [[today
yoteisareteiru]-no ]-wa kanari muzukashii.
is planned-NO-TOP
very difficult-346- 346 -On the Unavailability of NP-Ellipsis with Japanese Relative Clauses (Y. Miyamoto)(63)

a. [[amerika-ga
nihon-to kizuita] kankei]-wa ryookoo da ga,[[America-NOM Japan-with built
relation-TOP goodis though[[ pro tyuugoku-to
kizukoo-to shiteiru]
kankei]-wa saki-ga
China-withrelation-with trying to build relation-TOP future-NOM
futoomei da.
unclear is‘The relation that the United States built with Japan has been good, but therelation that she is trying to build with China is unclear about its future.’
nihon-tokizuita] kankei]-wa ryookoo da ga,
b. ?[[amerika-ga[[America-NOM Japan-with built
relation-TOP goodis though[[ pro tyuugoku-to kizukoo-to-shiteiru]-no ]-wa saki-ga
China -with trying to build-NO-TOP
future-NOM
futoomeida.
not obvious is

In this regard, Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik’s (1985: 299) view that “ But some[abstract non-count nouns] can be reclassified as count nouns where they refer to an instanceof a given abstract phenomenon.” appears most relevant; consider, for example, Franklin D.
Roosevelt’s 1941 Sate of the Union Address, proposing ‘four freedoms.’ Similarly, (64) canfollow (62b) or (63b):(64)[sono futa-tsu-no
syujyutsu/kankei]-wa seishitsu-ga
mattaku[this two-CL-GEN operation/relation-TOP characteristics-NOM quite
kotonaru-karada.
different-because is‘This is because these two operations/relations are quite different in nature.’(64) shows that syujyutsu and kankei are counted, and thus, it is quite reasonable that thesenouns represent instances. (63b), for instance, refers to two particular instances of relation
between nations, and these two instances are compared (Kinsui 1994). Roosevelt’s addressand (64), therefore, confirm that when an abstract noun refers to a particular instance of theproperty under question, the noun no longer behaves as a typical abstract noun. In short,examples such as (62b) and (63b) may not serve as typical examples involving an abstract
noun. If so, it is perhaps unsurprising that the pronominal no can appear in these examples; if
true, these examples do not constitute counter-evidence to SL&M’s proposal
Notice that in (61b), taido ‘attitude’ does not refer to particular ‘instances’ associatedwith this particular concept; accordingly, in contrast to (64), (65) is unacceptable, following(61b):-347- 347 -

2008

2012









taido]-wa
seishitsu-ga
mattaku(65) * [sono futa-tsu-no[this two-CL-GEN attitude-TOP characteristics-NOM quite
kotonaru-karada.
different-because is‘(lit.) This is because these two attitudes are quite different in nature.’
We therefore consider taido in (61b) as a genuine instance of abstract nouns. As a result,given Kamio’s condition, the pronominal no is not allowed in this example, as shown above.
Importantly, the contrast between (61b) on the one hand, and (62b) and (63b) on theother poses a problem for Takahashi’s NP-ellipsis account. For Takahashi, since all theexamples contain ‘abstract’ nouns, there is no obvious reason why the intended NP-ellipsis
cannot take place in (61b); the ellipsis under question should be uniformly permitted in all
three examples, contrary to fact. Accordingly, the ungrammaticality of (61b) constitutes ourthird argument supporting SL&M’s proposal based on Kamio’s condition on
concrete/abstract distinction of nouns. Within the hypothesis that the no attached to a relative
clause is the pronominal no, there is a means to understand Takahashi’s examples as well as
examples containing a genuine abstract noun, although the question of how to account for thenotion of ‘instances’ remains open for future research (see, for example, Givon 1993;
Guillemin-Flescher 1999).
7.

Concluding Remarks

This paper provides three arguments in support of SL&M’s proposal on NP-ellipsis inJapanese: (i) the availability of split and non-linguistic antecedents, and the difficulty ofobtaining the sloppy interpretation in some cases; (ii) the over-generation of the nominalinternal distributive interpretation in a certain context; and (iii) the relevance of theconcrete/abstract distinction on the pronominal no. First, in addition to the availability of split
and non-linguistic antecedents, Japanese relative clauses, in contrast to their Chinesecounterparts, do not easily permit sloppy readings that should be available if NP-ellipsis is
involved. This fact is naturally accounted for, given SL&M’s proposal under which Chinese,but not Japanese, relative clauses are of the Kaynean type. Second, in a particular context, thenominal-internal distributive interpretation, which requires the NQ+zutsu to form a relative
clause, is not available without an overt relative head. Under Takahashi’s proposal, this fact isvery difficult, if not impossible, to explain since the NQ+zutsu, being a relative clause, cantrigger NP-ellipsis and the relative head can be elided. Third, in Takahashi’s examples that heclaims involve an abstract noun as the target of NP-ellipsis, the noun under question is not atypical instance of abstract nouns. This paper, accordingly, suggests that Takahashi does not
succeed in excluding the possibility that the no involved in his examples is the pronominal
no. In addition, in cases where a ‘pure’ abstract noun is used, the relative clause, in fact,cannot be accompanied by no, as predicted under Kamio’s condition. SL&M’s proposal,
again, correctly captures this contrast between pure abstract nouns and abstract nouns in
disguise.

-348- 348 -On the Unavailability of NP-Ellipsis with Japanese Relative Clauses (Y. Miyamoto)

One issue, left for future research, is on the contrasts between Tokyo dialect and dialects
spoken in western Japan. In some of Kyushu dialects, the Genitive Case marker no is realized
as n(o), whereas the pronominal no appears as to. Given the conclusion that -no attached to
the relative clause is the pronominal no, we expect that relative clauses should beaccompanied with to, but not n(o). This prediction seems to be borne out, as shown in thecontrast between (66), Tokyo dialect, and (67), Nagasaki dialect:(66)

a. Jiroo-wa [[[JEAL-ni keisai-sareta] [[jibun-no otooto]-no-TOP-in was published [[self-GEN young brother-GEN
ronbun]]-ga
ichiban da]-to omotteiru.
paper -NOM
best
is -that think‘Jiro thinks that his own younger brother’s paper that was published in JEAL isthe best.’
b. Jiroo-wa [[[JEAL-ni keisai-sareta] [[jibun-no otooto]-no ]]-ga-TOP-in was published [[self -GEN young brother-NO-NOM
ichiban da]-to omotteiru.
best
is -that thinkc. Jiroo-wa [[[JEAL-ni keisai-sareta]-no ]-ga
ichiban da]-to omotteiru.
-TOP-in was published-NO-NOM best
is -that think(67)

a. Jiroo-wa [[[JEAL-ni keisai-sareta] [[jibun-no otooto]-n-TOP-in was published [[self -GEN young brother-GEN
ronbun]]-ga
ichiban ya]-to omottoru.
paper-NOM bestis-that think‘Jiro thinks that his own younger brother’s paper that was published in JEAL isthe best.’
b. Jiroo-wa [[[JEAL-ni keisai-sareta] [[jibun-no otooto]-n-to ]]-ga-TOP[[[JEAL-in was published [[self-GEN young brother-NO-one-NOM
ichiban ya]-to omottoru.
bestis-that thinkc. Jiroo-wa [[[JEAL-ni keisai-sareta]-to]-ga
ichiban ya]-to omottoru.
-TOP-by was published-one-NOM bestis-that think(67c) certainly suggests that the direction we pursued in this paper is promising. However, weadmit that there are some dialectal or idiolectal differences among native speakers of these
dialects. Therefore, any decisive conclusion must wait for further study.

-349- 349 -

2008

2012









References
Abe, J. (2006) “Licensing Condition on Ellipsis,” A Minimalist View of Components in Generative
Grammar 2, A Report for Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, Tohoku Gakuin University,
1–49.
Abney, S. J. (1987) The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Aoun, J. and A. Y. Li (2003) Essays on the Representational and Derivational Nature of Grammar:
The Diversity of Wh-Constructions, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, N. (1973) “Conditions on Transformations.” In S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky eds., A
Festschrift for Morris Halle, Holt, Reinhart and Winston, New York, 232–286.
Fukui, N. (1993) “A Note on Improper Movement,” The Linguistic Review 10, 111–126.
Givon, T. (1993) English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction, John Benjamins, Philadelphia.
Guillemin-Flescher, J. (1999) “Quantification and Point of View.” In A. Kamio and K. Takami eds.,
Function and Structure, John Benjamins, Philadelphia, 159–191.
Huang, C. T. J., Y. A. Li, and Y. Li. (2009) The Syntax of Chinese, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Jackendoff, R. S. (1971) “Gapping and Related Rules,” Linguistic Inquiry 2, 21–35.
Kadowaki, M. (2005) “N’-Ellipsis Reconsidered.” In Y. Otsu ed., Proceedings of the 6th Tokyo
Conference on Psycholinguistics, Hituzi Shobo, Tokyo, 191–215.
Kamio, A. (1983) “Meishiku-no Koozoo [The Structure of Noun Phrase].” In K. Inoue ed., Nihongono Kihon-Koozoo [Basic Structures of Japanese], Sanseidoo, Tokyo, 77–126.
Kayne, R. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kinsui, S. (1994) “Nihongo-no Iwayuru N’-Sakujyo-ni -tuite [On the so-called N’-ellipsis inJapanese],” paper presented at Nanzan University Symposium on the Japanese Language,
Nanzan University.
Kitagawa, C. and C. Ross (1982) “Prenominal Modification in Chinese and Japanese,” Linguistic
Analysis 9, 19–53.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1976-77). “Pivot-Independent Relativization in Japanese III,” Papers in Japanese
Linguistics 5, 157–179. Reprinted in S.-Y. Kuroda (1992) Japanese Syntax and Semantics as“Pivot-Independent Relativization in Japanese”, 114–174
Lin, T.-H. J., K. Murasugi, and M. Saito. (2001) “Modification and Specification: An Investigation of
No and De,” paper presented at the 10th annual meeting of the International Association ofChinese Linguistics, University of California, Irvine.
Lobeck, A. (1990) “Functional Heads as Proper Governors,” Proceedings of the North East LinguisticSociety 20, 348–362.
May, R. (1979) “Must COMP-to-COMP Movement be Stipulated?”, Linguistic Inquiry 10, 719–725.
Mihara, K. (1994) Nihongo-no Toogo-Koozoo [Syntactic Structures of Japanese], Shohakusha, Tokyo.
Miyamoto, Y. (2009) “On the Nominal-Internal Distributive Interpretation in Japanese,” Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 18, 233–251.
Miyamoto, Y. (2010) “On Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-Ellipsis,” Nanzan
Linguistics 6, 13–46.
Murasugi, K. (1991) Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability, andAcquisition, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Murasugi, K. (2000a) “An Antisymmetry Analysis of Japanese Relative Clauses.” In A. Alexiadou, P.
Law, A. Meinunger and C. Wilder eds., The Syntax of Relative Clauses, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam, 231–264.
Murasugi, K. (2000b) “Japanese Complex Noun Phrases and the Antisymmetry Theory.” In R. Martin,
D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor ofHoward Lasnik, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 211–234.

-350- 350 -On the Unavailability of NP-Ellipsis with Japanese Relative Clauses (Y. Miyamoto)Ochi, M. (2012) “Numeral Classifiers, Plural/Collective Elements, and Nominal Ellipsis,” Nanzan
Linguistics 8, 89–107.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English
Language, Longman, Harlow.
Saito, M. (1985) Some Asymmetries in Japanese and their Theoretical Implications, Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT.
Saito, M., T.-H. J. Lin, and K. Murasugi (2008) “N’-Ellipsis and the Structure of Noun Phrases in
Chinese and Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17, 247–271.
Saito, M., and K. Murasugi (1990) “N’-Deletion in Japanese: A Preliminary Study. In H. Hoji ed.,Japanese/Korean Linguistics 1, CSLI Publications, Stanford, 258–286.
Simpson, A. (2002) “On the Status of Modifying De and the Syntax of the Chinese DP.” In S.-W.
Tang and C.-S. L. Liu eds., On the Formal Way to Chinese Languages, CSLI Publications,
Stanford, 74–101
Takahashi, M. (2011) Some Theoretical Consequences of Case-Marking in Japanese, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Watanabe, A. (2010) “Notes on Nominal Ellipsis and the Nature of No and Classifiers in Japanese,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19, 61–74.

-351- 351 -STEPS IN THE EMERGENCE OF FULL SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE
IN
CHILD GRAMMAR *Keiko Murasugi
Nanzan University

1.

Introduction

Between the ages of 11 and 19 months, the first utterances (or holophrases) make theirappearance in child language. It has generally been believed that children’s knowledge ofsyntactic structure is not well developed during the initial period of language acquisition.
Japanese-speaking children, just like children speaking other languages, start with theholophrase stage, followed by the two-word stage and the multi-word stage. But children do
not necessarily start just with nouns and verbs. They also produce the uppermost elementsthat link the speaker and the addressee, or discourse markers/sentence-final particles, at a very
early stage of language acquisition as well. This paper explores two topics pertaining tochildren’s early syntactic structure, Root Infinitives and the acquisition of discourse markers.
In this paper, we report the finding that Japanese- (and Chinese-) speaking children
produce sentence-final particles earlier than tense-marked verbs, but argue that this isconsistent with the Truncation Hypothesis proposed by Rizzi (1993/1994) for children’s early* I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mamoru Saito, Diane Lillo-Martin, William Snyder,eljko Bo kovi, Mona Anderson, Michiya Kawai, Luigi Rizzi, Adriana Belletti, Memo Cinque, Ken
Wexler, Ian Roberts, Jim Huang, Dylan Tsai, Jonah Lin, Madelaine Chien, Audrey Li, Andrew
Simpson, Thomas Lee, R. Amritavalli, K.A. Jayaseelan, Kamil Deen, Bonnie Shwartz, Lillian
Haegeman, Kensuke Takita, Koji Sugisaki, Yuji Takano, Hideki Kishimoto, Daiko Takahashi, Yoichi
Miyamoto, Hiroaki Tada, Hisa Kitahara, Hide Tanaka, Mika Kizu, Peter Sells, Bjarke Frellesvig,
Haruo Kubozono, Taro Kageyama, Hiromu Sakai, Masatake Arimoto, Tomo Fujii, Tomoko
Kawamura, Tomoko Hashimoto, Tomomi Nakatani, Chisato Fuji, KeikoYano, Yasuki Ueda, Mayumi
Dejima, Eriko Watanabe, Naoko Sawada, Yuma Iwatani, Yasuhito Kido, and the colleagues in theCenter for Linguistics at Nanzan University, University of Connecticut and NINJAL, and theresearchers I’ve met through them for their suggestions on the topics discussed in this paper, although
I cannot name them all here. My sincere thanks go to Mamoru Saito, Chisato Fuji, Yuma Iwatani and
Anthony Cripps for their invaluable comments on this paper, and to Atsushi Sato for his editorial help.
The research presented in this paper was supported in part by the Nanzan University Pache
Research Grant I-A 2012, JSPS Grant-in-Aid (C) (# 23520529, Keiko Murasugi), the Japanese
Ministry of Education and Science Grant-in-Aid for ‘Strategic Establishment of Centers for Advanced
Research in Private Universities’ (Mamoru Saito, Center for Linguistics, Nanzan University), and the
National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics (NINJAL) Collaborative Research Project“Linguistic Variations within the Confines of the Language Faculty: A Study in Japanese First
Language Acquisition and Parametric Syntax” (Keiko Murasugi, Project Leader, Nanzan University).

-353-

2008

2012







syntactic structure. We show that a Japanese-speaking child at around 1;05 through 1;08
produce Root Infinitive (Analogues) such as the Verb+ta form with speech act heads such asne, and later, at around 1;10, the complementizer no, which is the head of a Finite Phrase for
propositions, productively. The empirical fact that it is only after 1;11 when the fullconjugation of the verbs and Nominative Case marker start to appear suggests that children do
not simply construct the phrase structure in a bottom-up way. Rather, very young children’s
syntactic structures are truncated, and the sentence-final particles or discourse markers
bootstrap the acquisition of their full syntactic structure.
2.
2.1.

Grammatical Tense Deficits in Children
Root Infinitives

Young children have troubles with tense-marking. It has been found that in languages
with relatively “rich” morphology such as Dutch, German and French, children may
optionally use the infinitival forms of inflection (e.g., affix) on the verbs, rather than finite
ones, in the root clause.
(1)

a. Mamaradio aan doen (Dutch) (2;00)
mummy radio on to-do‘Mummy switch on radio.’ (Wijnen, Kempen and Gillis 2001)
b. Thorsten Caesar haben (German) (2;01)
Thorsten Caesar to-have‘Thorsten has [the doll] Caesar.’ (Poeppel and Wexler 1993)
c. Voir l’auto
to-see the carpapa (French) (2;02)
daddy (Intended meaning: On-going activity) (Pierce 1992)

In languages which are relatively “poor” in inflectional morphology like English, on theother hand, the bare verb forms appear in finite (root) contexts. In adult English, infinitive
forms are generally the bare stems, and English-speaking children produce the bare stems
within the age range of 20-36 months as shown in (2).
(2)

a. Papa have it (English) (1;06)
b. Cromer wear glasses (English) (2;00)

The non-finite verb forms employed by children in finite (root) contexts are termed RootInfinitives (RIs), and their properties have been extensively examined in child language
research.
It has been pointed out that RIs/Root Infinitive Analogues (=RIAs) are associated withsome morpho-syntactic and semantic properties.

-354- 354 -Steps in the Emergence of Full Syntactic Structure in Child Grammar (K. Murasugi)(3)

Properties common among Root Infinitives/Root Infinitive Analogues
a. At the RI stage, no T-related/C-related items are found.
b. RIs are produced to describe events in real time, that is, as an on-going activity inthe past, present or future that the child is involved in.
c. RIs occur in modal contexts (Modal Reference Effects).
d. RIs are restricted to event-denoting predicates (Eventivity Constraint).
e. Head Merger is not available during the RI(A) stage.

As shown in (3a), at the stage where non-finite verbs are used in finite (root) contexts,
C-related elements such as wh-phrases and complementizers (Haegeman 1995), and T-related
elements such as be-copula and auxiliaries are not found. In addition, two peculiar types ofcontextual interpretations have been identified. One type refers to the so-called extensional
contexts, whereby RI(A)’s are produced to describe events in real time, that is, on-going
activities in the past, present or future that the child is involved in. For example, the non-finite
forms in child French like (1c) are produced to describe an on-going activity. The other typeof interpretation refers to the so-called intentional contexts, whereby RI(A)s are produced toexpress children’s intention, desire or volition in various “irrealis” modal contexts. This istermed the Modal Reference Effects (MREs) (Hoekstra and Hyams 1998). In addition, RIs, ingeneral, are largely restricted to the eventive predicates (Hoekstra and Hyams 1998), and thehead merger between V and T is not available during the stage of RI(A)s (Phillips 1995,
1996; Murasugi and Fuji 2008b).
Deen (2002) argues that Swahili also has an RIA, whose form is a bare verb just like
English. He argues that Swahili-speaking children omit prefixes in a pattern quite consistent
with Schütze and Wexler’s (1996) Agreement and Tense Omission Model (ATOM).
According to ATOM, subjects need to check both tense and agreement features for adults, but
for kids, only one is possible. Either T or Agr is left out, and hence, the case errors (e.g., Him
want it) and the RIs are both observed at around 2 to 3 years old. Crucially, tense andagreement have distinct properties and play distinct roles in licensing the subject andinflection. Table 1 summarizes the possible combinations of the features of INFL. Whenagreement is fully specified in English, nominative Case must be assigned. When agreement
is underspecified, nominative Case cannot be assigned, and hence, a default case, accusative
Case, may arise. When tense is underspecified, the verb appears as a bare verb. When tense
and agreement are both underspecified, subject is marked with genitive Case with a bare verb.

-355- 355 -

2008

2012









Table 1: Summary of possible features of INFL and the Case on Subject
INFL features
Subject+Tense,NOM-Case+agreement
marking+Tense,ACC-Case- agreement
marking-Tense,NOM-Case+agreement
marking-Tense,GEN-Case- agreement
marking(Schütze and Wexler 1996)

English Examples
he cries
him cry, him cried
he cryhis cry

Accordingly, young children speaking Swahili omit functional elements such as tenseand subject agreement, as shown in (4).
(4)

Swahili RIAs: Bare Verbs (Deen 2002)
a. Child: mimi Ø-na -ruk -a (2;10)
Adult: mimi ni-na -ruk -a (present tense)
SA1s -pres -jump -IND
‘I jump down.’b. Child: ni-Ø-kw-ambi -a (1;10)
Adult: ni-na -kw-ambi -a
SA1s -pres -OA2s -tell -IND
‘I am telling you.’c. Child: Ø-Ø-tak -atuwadh -a (2;06)
Adult: ni-na -tak -atuwadh -a
SA1s -pres -want -IND bathe -IND
‘I want to bathe.’(4a) is a clause which lacks subject agreement; (4b) is a clause which lacks tense. (4c) showsthat the child uses the bare stem of the verb which lacks both subject agreement and tense.
Deen (2002) typologically classifies child languages into three types: languages thatallow “true” RIs such as German and French, languages that have no RI phenomenon such as
Italian and Japanese, and languages like Swahili whose very early non-finite verb forms
appear as bare verbs. Deen’s typology has been supported, in part, by the tendency of subject
NPs being phonetically null at the RI(A) stage in the non-pro-drop languages in general, andthe empirical findings that Italian-speaking children (e.g., Martina (1;08-2;07), Diana(1;10-2;06), Guglielmo (2;02-2;07)) (Guasti 1993/1994) and Japanese-speaking children (e.g.,
Toshi (2;03), Ken (2;08-2;10), Masanori (2;04)) (Sano 1995) produce inflected forms in the-356- 356 -Steps in the Emergence of Full Syntactic Structure in Child Grammar (K. Murasugi)

adult way at an early stage of language acquisition. It has been considered that children
acquiring pro-drop languages do not go through the RI(A) stage.
Table 2: Typology of Root Infinitives (Deen 2002)
True RI
Languages
GermanSwedishFrenchIcelandic
Dutch
Russian

Non-RI
Languages
ItalianJapanese
SpanishCatalanBare Verb
Languages
EnglishQuechua
SesothoInuktitut
Siswati
SwahiliIn the next section, we argue that there is an RI stage in Japanese, and the languages
categorized as Non-RI languages above are, in fact, the languages which have surrogate verb
forms as the Root Infinitive Analogues.
2.2.

Surrogate Verbs in Child Japanese: Verb+ta FormJapanese is an agglutinating argument-drop language where bare stems cannot standalone without, for example, tense or aspect morphemes, as shown in (5). Japanese is, like
Italian and Spanish, a [-stem] language whose verbs cannot surface as bare forms.
(5)a. *tabe- (to eat)b. *suwar- (to sit)

Unlike Italian and Spanish, however, Japanese does not have rich verbal inflection thatindicates number and gender. Japanese verbs inflect for tense, negation, aspect and mood. The
following are some inflections for the verb “to eat,” which has the root tabe-.
(6)

a. tabe-ru (eat) present/dictionary formb. tabe-ta (ate) pastc. tabe-(a)nai (not eat) negationd. tabe-(i)te iru (is eating) progressive1

1(i)

The abbreviated V-teru/-teta forms are used as colloquial expressions in Adult Japanese.
Tabe-te-ru/-ta
eat-Asp-Pres/-Past‘(I) have/had eaten.’ / ‘(I) am/was eating.’-357- 357 -

2008

2012









e. tabe-te (eat) imperative
The verb stem tabe- (to eat) is followed by the present-/past-tense morphemes as in (6a-b),
and it is followed by the aspectual morpheme -te-i to indicate either an ongoing process or a
result state of the event as in (6d). For request or imperative, the -te form is employed as in(6e).
The conjugations in Japanese are acquired at an early stage, at around the beginning ofage two. The numbers of each verbal forms in Sumihare (Noji 1973–1977) are shown in
Figure 1.
Figure 1: Frequency of verbal forms in Sumihare’s corpus())$'"

'(#)'*$'"#*"'"%') +)$'"

'+'!'&*())$'" 

$! ) $#),$$  +"

(%))'*%'$'((%') +) $## #$#$)



 

 

 



  






)'$'"(Murasugi, Fuji and Hashimoto (2007), Murasugi and Fuji (2008a, b) and Murasugi,
Nakatani and Fuji (2010), based on the corpus analysis of Sumihare (CHILDES) and thelongitudinal study with Yuta, a Japanese-speaking child, argue that there is a stage of RIAs in
Japanese acquisition. According to them, some of the typical properties of RIs given in (3) arealso observed in Japanese in early non-finite verbal forms: (i) T-related (e.g., Nominative
Case and copula) and C-related items are not observed with the early non-finite verbs, andtense is underspecified, (ii) the past-tense morpheme is not found with adjectives (i.e., only
present-tensed adjectives are produced), (iii) Verb-ta forms (past-tensed verb forms) areproduced to describe an on-going activity, (iv) Verb-ta forms (past-tensed verb forms) areused in matrix clauses for the irrealis or volition meaning (Modal Reference Effects (=MRE)),(v) Verb-ta forms are restricted to event-denoting predicates, and (vi) no merger of heads
inside the verbal projection are observed at the RIA stages Phillips (1995) proposes.
Sumihare, for example, at around 1;06 through 1;11, used the Verb-ta form in a different
way from adults, semantically denoting the meaning of volition (desire) or request.
(7)

a. Atti Atti Atti i-ta (1;06) (irrealis/volition) (Adult form: ik-u/ik-e)
there there there go-TA‘I want to go there. / Go there.’-358- 358 -Steps in the Emergence of Full Syntactic Structure in Child Grammar (K. Murasugi)b. Tiisi-ta (1;07) (irrealis/volition) (Adult form: si-ta-i)
onomatopoeia (pee) do-TA‘I want to pee.’c. Baba pai-ta (1;08) (request) (Adult form: pai-si-te )mud onomatopoeia (throw away)-TA‘Throw (the mud) away.’
Noji (the observer) describes that i-ta in (7a)2 means ik-u (go-Pres), and states, “Sumihare
uttered i-ta as he could not say ik-u” (Noji 1973–1977 I: 195). Noji also writes importantcomments for (7b), which convinces us of the Modal Reference Effects at the early stage ofJapanese acquisition: Sumihare used tii-si-ta in a volition context when he wanted to pee. As
for (7c), Sumihare produced pai-ta, attaching -ta on the onomatopoeia pai (to throw away), in
order to ask his mother to remove mud from a potato.
The percentage of V-ta forms decreases with age, as is clear from Figure 2. At 1;06-1;07,
he used the V-ta form almost 100% of the time. RIAs are not “optional infinitives” inJapanese-type languages.
Figure 2: The overall proportion of verbal forms in Sumihare’s corpus at each stage.
)**&($'(%* 




()%*(+&($

$'(*",&($(,(#*&($

&#"*"&%*-&&"",$)'**(+'(& ())'(*",
 *"&%%"%&%&*

*!(&($)










 



 







Parallel data are found in a longitudinal study with another Japanese-speaking child,
Yuta, as in (8) (Nakatani and Murasugi 2009).
(8)

a. Ai-ta
open-TA

Ai-ta (1;07.1) (irrealis/volition) (Adult form: ake-te)
openPast‘I want to open this cabinet./ Open this cabinet.’

2

The context for (7a) is the following: Sumihare’s father (Noji, the observer) went out for a walkwith Sumihare on his back. Noji tried to go back home, but Sumihare pointed to a different direction
and produced “atti (there)” twice. Sumihare got frustrated and said, “atti i-ta (there go-Past)=(Literalmeaning: I went, Intended meaning: I wanna go there)” angrily again.

-359- 359 -

2008

2012







b. Hait-ta Hait-ta (1;07.16) (volition) (Adult form: ire-tai)enter-TA enter-TA‘I want to put this notebook into this bag.’c. Oti-ta
Otyoto(=Osoto) Oti-ta (1;07.13) (progressive)
drop-TA outside
drop-TA(Adult form: otosi-teiru)‘I am putting this doll out outside.’d. Oti-ta Oti-ta Oti-ta (1;07.5) (result) (Adult form: oti-teiru)
fall-TA fall-TA fall-TA‘A container of the video tape is lying there.’
The empirical evidence that V-ta forms, but not the other verbal forms such as present-tensed
forms, are consistently used by the very young children under two to denote intentional
meaning exemplified in (8a) and (8b) and extensional meaning exemplified in (8c) and (8d),suggests that the verbal conjugation, i.e., the merger of V and inflection, is not yet available
then. This is the stage where a default morphological form in the target language is used as
the first verbal form by a child.
Then, why is it the case that V-ta form is chosen as the RIA in Japanese by different
children out of several inflected forms, despite the fact that each child receives different
input? Here arises a bridge between child language and syntactic theory. Murasugi (2009)
proposes that V-ta is the default infinitive form in both child and adult Japanese.
Cinque (2004) and Kawai (2006), for adult Syntax, propose that there are non-finite“surrogate” verbs that look like finite verbs, and the surrogate forms are derived by anoperation to make the verbal stems well-formed morphological words in the adult grammar of
Salentino/Serbo-Croatian and Japanese, respectively. Furthermore, there is evidence that the
past-tense form, V-ta, which children pick as an RIA is most unmarked among the possible
forms in Japanese.3
Two conjuncts unspecified for tense, for example, are conjoined with -ta forms as in(9a-b), and -ta forms can be used for future as in (10a-b) and with irrealis meaning as well, as
exemplified in (10c).
(9)a. Tabe-ta ri
eat-TA

non-da ri si-yoo/su-ru/si-ta
drink-TA let’s do/do-Pres/do-Past‘We eat/ate, and we drink/drank.’3

Non-finite verb forms are found in the embedded clauses in Adult Japanese. The past verbal
inflection -ta lacks tense interpretation (but it is rather aspectual) in such relative clauses as “yude-ta
tamago” (boil-past egg, meaning boiled egg (property reading)) in Adult Japanese.

-360- 360 -Steps in the Emergence of Full Syntactic Structure in Child Grammar (K. Murasugi)b.

It-ta rigo-TA

ki-ta ri de taihen
come-TA for troublesome

da/dat-ta
is /was‘It is/was troublesome to go back and forth.’(10)

a. Asu-wa
nani-osuru-no-dat-ta-ka-na?
tomorrow-Top what-Acc do-Nom-Cop-TA-C-Speech Act‘What am I going to do tomorrow?’b. Sooda! Asu-wa
paatii-dat-ta!
so-Cop Tomorrow-Top party-Cop-TA‘Aha! Tomorrow is a party!’c. Mosimo watasi-ga ie-otate-ru/-tanara tiisana
if
I-Nom
house-Acc build-pres/TA then small
ie-otate-ru/-ta(deshoo)house-Acc build-pres/-TA (would)‘If I built a house, I would build a tiny one.’

Furthermore, just like infinitives in Italian (Rizzi 1993/1994), Japanese V-ta forms canbe used as non-finite surrogate forms to express strong imperatives as shown in (11).
(11)

a. Partire immediatamente!
go
immediately(Rizzi 1993/1994)
b. Sassato
immediately

Kaet-ta!
go back-TA

Kaet-ta!
go back-TA‘Go back immediately.’
Thus, the ta-form seems function as a non-finite form as well as a past-tense form in adultJapanese. Children, without being taught by caretakers, even at one year old, choose thenon-finite V-ta form as the surrogate form, attaching a “default” morpheme ta to the verb
stem, before they fully acquire the conjugation system of the verbs.
Suppose that the unmarked surrogate form in Japanese is the non-finite V-ta form in
adult Japanese. The agglutinative language-speaking children, even at the age of one, know
the morphological property that verbal stems cannot stand without tense/aspect morphemesin their target language. And when Tense Phrase is not projected, the unmarked verbal
suffix(es) is (are) chosen for the surrogate form(s), i.e., the RIA(s).
2. 3.

Typology in Root Infinitives Revisited

There are in fact a lot of important cross-linguistic studies reporting that very young
children produce verbs which appear to be finite, but are, in fact, non-finite. For example, as-361- 361 -

2008

2012







shown in (12), Kim and Phillips (1998) find that Korean-speaking children, at the beginningof age two, attach a mood marker -e and the form is used in the full range of environments
almost 100 percent just like Japanese -ta. According to Kim and Phillips (1998), in adult
Korean, -e functions as a default mood marker. And their subject uses the Verb+e form in allcontexts, even in contexts where the V-e form is not allowed in the adult Korean.4(12)Korean RIAs: Stem + Mood particle -e(/a) form (Kim and Phillips 1998)
a. mek-e
emma (2 yrs) (adult form: mek-ca (eat-Propositive))eat-Decl mommy‘Let’s eat, Mommy.’
b. aykibaby

pwo-a (2 yrs) (adult form: pwo-l-kkeya (look-Presumptive))look-Decl‘Baby (I) will look at it.’In (12a) instead of the propositive morpheme, and in (12b) instead of the presumptive
morpheme, a(e) is used. Just like Japanese, T-related (e.g., Nominative Case) and C-related
items are not observed with the early non-finite verbs, and tense is underspecified. Table 3
summarizes the child languages that have what we call “the surrogate verbs”.
Table 3: Child languages that have Surrogate Infinitives
±bare
stem

Forms

SourceItalian
Kuwaiti
ArabicImperative form

Salustri and Hyams (2003, 2006)

Masculine imperative form

Aljenaie (2000)

Spanish3rd person singular form

Grinstead (1994),
Pratt and Grinstead (2007)

Catalan

3rd person singular form

Grinstead (1994), Torrens (1995)

Romanian

Verb+Past participle form

Nicoleta (2006)

Greek

Bare perfective form

Varlokosta, Vainikka andRohrbacher (1998), Hyams (2005)

TurkishVerb+-di (Past tense marker)

Aksu-Koç and Ketrez (2003)

K’iche’Maya

Stem+ch/ik (sentence
terminator)

Pye (2001)

KoreanStem+Mood particle e(/a) form

Kim and Phillips (1998)

For example, Arabic is a synthetic language with rich bound morphology. As shown in (13),4

See Murasugi and Fuji (2008a) for the details.

-362- 362 -Steps in the Emergence of Full Syntactic Structure in Child Grammar (K. Murasugi)

Aljenaie (2000) finds that Kuwaiti Arabic-speaking children at around the age of two
typically produce verbs which lack present and past tense, and mark the stem with anotherinflection.
(13)

Kuwaiti Arabic ([-bare stem]) RIAs: Masculine imperative form
Eh xalis (1;11-2;05) (adult form: xalis-at (finish-3f))
yes, finished‘Yes, it is finished.’ (Aljenaie 2000)

Children never leave a verb uninflected as it does not constitute a well-formed word in
Kuwaiti Arabic, but alternatively, children choose a default masculine imperative form as thesurrogate verb form. Many children, who speak the languages whose verb stems cannot standalone, produce surrogate verbs at around late one or very early two years old. These children
consistently use the default “apparently conjugated” infinitive form during the RIA period.
Note here that RIAs with the so-called “surrogate infinitives” are found at around age
one, much earlier than RIs are found in European languages, and the non-finite form is not
optionally used either. The non-finite form is initially (at around 1;06-1;07) used 100% of thetime in a full range of environments, and there is no correlation between null subjects andnon-finite verb forms in Japanese and Korean, for example, unlike the case of European RIs.
The sharp contrast indicates that the so-called “Root Infinitive (Analogue) stage” isactually twofold: tense-truncated stage and tense-unspecified stage. The RI(A)s found before
two are the default verb forms in the target language, and they are used either when Tense
Phrase is not projected as the Truncation Hypothesis (Rizzi 1993/1994) predicts or when there
is no functional categories as Radford (1990, 1991) and Galasso (2011) propose.5 In fact,
Galasso (2011) finds that the stage where D is missing (as in *Jim book (=Jim’s book)) comes
before the Root Infinitive stage where T is optionally morphologically realized andnon-nominative subjects appear in the subject position (as in *Her eat it (She eats it.)).
RIAs found at a later stage after two correspond to the so-called Optional Infinitives.
Optional Infinitives, the infinitives optionally used in the matrix clauses, are produced whenfeatures in Tense and Agreement are underspecified as ATOM (Schütze and Wexler 1996)
predicts. In fact, just like English-speaking children, children speaking Japanese 6 , forexample, also optionally mark the subject of the sentence “erroneously” with genitive or
dative after the verbal conjugations are acquired after two or so, and this is the stage observed
5

Rizzi (1993/1994) presents “the truncation model”, under which very young children may “stopearly” as they are building up the phrase structure. Adults build their trees all the way to CP as a root,
but children might not.
6

See Radford (1990, 1999) and Galasso (2011) for the detailed analysis of non-nominative subjects
in Child English. And see Murasugi and Watanabe (2009), Sawada, Murasugi and Fuji (2010) and
Sawada and Murasugi (2011) for the analysis of non-nominative subjects in child Japanese. See also
Mahajan (2004) for the syntax of non-nominative subjects.

-363- 363 -

2008

2012







in a lot of languages.7
2.4. Imperatives (Bare Verbs) in Child Chinese
The discussion so far indicates that if a language L has verbs whose stem cannot standalone, children speaking L would produce the “surrogate infinitival” forms (e.g., as inJapanese) or infinitival form (e.g., as in Italian). Then, what about an isolating pro-drop, ormore precisely, isolating argument-drop language, Chinese? Adult Chinese is an isolating
language which does not have the so-called “infinitives”. Do Chinese-speaking children go
through the RIA stage? If so, which form do Chinese-speaking children use as their RIA?
Given the argument so far, we would predict that Chinese-speaking children would use
the bare forms as the RIAs. In what follows, we will present a piece of evidence to indicatethat the prediction might be accurate.
RI(A) phenomenon is very much related to the imperative. In fact, the bare stem of theverb in English, the Japanese V-ta, and infinitives in European languages are generally used
as imperatives as well. And there are a lot of cross-linguistic studies reporting that the first
non-finite verbal form children produce is imperative.
Salustri and Hyams (2003) observe that the proportion of imperatives is significantly
higher than that of RIs. According to Salustri and Hyams (2003, 2006), Italian-speaking
children begin using imperatives before the age of 2, and the verbs have appropriate
morphology.
(14)

dammi! (1;10)
give-to mecl
‘give it to me.’ (Salustri and Hyams 2003)

There are cases where two forms are observed even in a single language as RIs. For
instance, Bar-Shalom and Snyder (2001) report that children speaking Russian produce twoforms of RIs: infinitives and imperatives. Dutch has been considered a typical RI language,
but still, there are some mysterious descriptions. As shown in (15), Wijnen, Kempen and
Gillis (2001) report that verbal forms resembling imperatives are found, in addition to theinfinitive forms, at the early two-word stage. If this is the case, then Dutch-speaking children
7

The absence of agreement is connected with the parameter of argument-drop (Saito (2007),
Takahashi (in press)). Japanese is a language that allows argument ellipsis, and argument ellipsis inJapanese is proposed to arise from the absence of overt agreement. Mamoru Saito (p.c.) suggested a
possibility that when the agreement system is not fully acquired at around two, the English-speaking
children may allow argument ellipsis as well, just like Japanese. His suggestion may naturally explain
the well-known empirical fact that robust null subjects are observed at the stage of “Root Infinitives”
when the features of Tense and Agreement are not fully specified, and the subject NPs are marked
with either nominative, genitive or dative optionally at around two in a lot of languages including
English.

-364- 364 -Steps in the Emergence of Full Syntactic Structure in Child Grammar (K. Murasugi)

produce the imperative forms as well as the infinitive forms as their first verbs.
(15)“…Starting with the early two-word stage, forms resembling imperatives werediscarded from the analyses, as it is unclear whether they are finite or non-finite.”(Wijnen, Kempen and Gillis 2001)

The findings independently obtained from Russian, Italian and Dutch given above may not be
coincidental. The very early non-finite verbs do not necessarily appear in a single form per
language. Furthermore, the imperative forms, it seems, are chosen as the RIAs in more than a
few languages.
Lillo-Martin and Quadros (2009) also argue that imperative forms are RIAs in American
Sign Language (ASL) and Brazilian Sign Language (LSB). These languages have both
agreeing verbs which move from one location to another associated with their arguments, andplain verbs which do not require modification to indicate the subject or the object.
Lillo-Martin and Quadros (2009) argue that children produce notably more imperatives withagreeing verbs than with plain verbs, and further, that the ratio of imperatives is quite high.
Grinstead (1998), Bel (2001) and Montrul (2004) find that imperatives are quite frequent in
the early stage and decrease over time in Spanish and Catalan. In child Hungarian andSlovenian, the imperative forms are reported to start out very high and decrease with age, too(Londe 2004, Rus 2004).
As for Chinese, Chien (2009), based on the corpus analysis of two children (1;9-3;1,
1;11-3;0) and two adults from Tsing-Hua Mandarin Child Language Corpus, argues thatchildren speaking Mandarin use imperative forms as RIAs. The imperative RIA is
exemplified in (16):(16)

a. (ni) qu chi mian-bao (2;05)(you) go eat bread‘You go to eat the bread.’(Context: The child (=speaker) asks the adult to eat the bread.)b. (ni) yong na ge hecha (2;06)(you) use that CL drink tea‘You use the one to drink tea.’(Context: The child (=speaker) asks the adult to use that cup to drink tea.)c. Ni bao ta (2;05)
you hold it‘You hold it.’(Context: The child (=speaker) asks the adult to hold a toy.)-365- 365 -

2008

2012

d. Ni
qian
You pull along





ge-ge (2;05)
brother‘You pull along my brother.’(Context: The child (=speaker) asks the adult to pull along his/her brother.)
Chien’s (2009) finding has striking parallels with Salustri and Hyams’ (2003, 2006) proposalthat Italian RIAs are imperatives. The evidence is elicited based on the criterion given in (17):(17)

a. In null subject languages imperatives will occur significantly more often in childlanguage than in adult language.
b. In child language imperatives will occur significantly more often in the nullsubject languages than in the RI languages.
(Salustri and Hyams 2003, 2006)

Chien (2009) finds that the frequency of imperatives in child Mandarin is higher than thefrequency of imperatives in the adult speech, and argues that the results obtained in her study
are consistent with those of Salustri and Hyams’ (2003, 2006). According to Salustri andHyams (2003, 2006), Italian-speaking adults use only about 5.6% imperative forms; while
Italian-speaking children use about 16.4% to 31.1% imperative forms (and use only 0% to2.8% infinitive forms). In contrast, in German, a typical RI language, adults use 35.6%
imperatives, and children use about 10% imperative. Chien’s (2009) data is basically parallelwith Salustri and Hyams’ (2003). For example, according to Chien’s (2009) counting,
Mandarin-speaking adults use only about 10% imperative; while a Mandarin-speaking child,at 2;5, use about 47% imperatives. A closer examination of Chien’s (2009) findings indicatesthat the contrast between child and adult imperatives is much more salient in Chinese than the
Italian case. For a Mandarin-speaking child at 1;11, her study shows that 60% of theutterances is in imperative form. Thus, just like Salustri and Hyams (2003, 2006), Chien’s(2009) finding suggests that there is a RIA stage in Chinese, and the form is imperative in
Mandarin Chinese.
Now, given Chien’s (2009) finding, we predict that the very young children producing
imperatives as their RIAs would produce the strings that lack or are underspecified with tense.
And there is a piece of evidence to suggest that this might be correct.
Lin (2008) argues that there is a finite and non-finite contrast in adult Mandarin.
According to Lin (2006, 2008), epistemic and obligation modals take a finite TP complement
and can only appear in finite contexts. By contrast, future and other types of root modals takea non-finite TP complement and can occur in finite and non-finite clauses.8 He argues that
epistemic modals always scope over le since le can be licensed within their finite TP
8

As a result, Lin (2006) proposes that modals that take finite TP must precede modals that take a
non-finite TP, and Lin thereby sets up the following hierarchy of modals in Mandarin Chinese.

(i)

Necessity > Possibility/Obligation > Future > Ability/Permission/Volition-366- 366 -Steps in the Emergence of Full Syntactic Structure in Child Grammar (K. Murasugi)complements. Conversely, root modals always scope under le because le cannot be licensed
within their non-finite TP complements. If le is to appear, it must be generated in the matrix
Asp and takes the modal verb as its complement. See (18) (Lin 2006).
(18)

a. Zhangsani TF [AspP [VP
Zhangsankeneng [TP ti TF [AspP [VP qu Taipei] le]]] Ø]
likelygo Taipei Prf Stc‘It is likely that Zhangsan has gone to Taipei.’b. Zhangsani TF [AspP [VP
Zhangsannenggou [TP PRO TNF [AspP [VP qu Taipei] Ø]]] le]able
go Taipei Stc Prf‘Zhangsan has (become) able to go to Taipei.’
What crucially matters for the argument here is the fact that the sentence-final particles le(and the progressive aspect marker zai, according to Lin (2008)) in adult Mandarin
distinguishes finite sentences from non-finite ones. Given the adult grammar, the perfectsentence particle le (and zai) is predicted to be (at least optionally) absent/underspecified at
the stage of RIAs in child Mandarin.
Liu (2009), interestingly enough, observes that Mandarin-speaking children drop theperfective sentence particle le at a very early stage of language acquisition. HY (1;09), forexample, dropped le in the obligatory context as shown in (19). In (19), the child dropped leeven when repeating what his mother has said to him.
(19)

Mom: Xie huir, lei
lerest a-bit tired LE‘Let’s rest a bit; you are tired.’
HY (1;09): Xie huir, lei Ø

A similar example in (20) in found in the production of BB (1;10).
(20)

BB (1;10) : Nainai
qu nar Ø
grandma go where‘Where does Gramma go?’(Intended meaning: ‘Where did Gramma go?’)Mom: Ta nainai qu Hangzhou le.
his gramma go
LE‘His Gramma went to Hangzhou.’As shown in (21), the achievement verb po (to be torn, worn out) should be marked with theperfective marker le in adult Mandarin, but a child, LC (1;09), dropped it.

-367- 367 -

2008

(21)

2012





LC (1;09) : po Ø
wear-out‘It’s worn out.’

Needless to say, we need to confirm that the Mandarin-speaking children using
imperatives as RIAs also drop le at the same time. We also need to examine carefully whether
or not the typical RI(A) properties listed in (3) are observed in Mandarin Chinese. However,the fact that Mandarin-speaking children dominantly use imperatives (as RIAs) and drop theperfective marker le at the age of one suggests that there is an intermediate stage where thesentence is underspecified with or lack tense even in the acquisition of a typicalargument-drop language, Mandarin Chinese.
To sum up the argument so far, we have addressed two questions: (i) “what” question,i.e., the descriptive adequacy of the claim that the pro-drop language-speaking children do not
go through the RI(A) stage, and (ii) “how” question, i.e., why it is the case that there arecross-linguistic variations in the form or RIAs. We argued that children acquiring Japanese,
Korean and Chinese, typical pro-drop or argument-drop languages, do go through the RI(A)stage. Non-finite verbs in finite (root) contexts are common in the very young childproduction cross-linguistically, and the early verbal forms in child languages reflect the coremorphological properties of the adult grammar.
In particular, we argued that V-ta, or the past-tense/strong imperative form, V-e, or verb
followed by the default mood, and the imperative form (or the bare form), are the RIAs in
Japanese, Korean and Chinese, respectively. Child language reveals that Japanese and Korean
are grouped together as the “surrogate”-RI(A)-type language just like Turkish andKuwaiti-Arabic. Child Chinese, on the other hand, indicates that the RIA in Chinese is theimperative form just like Italian and ASL. Interestingly enough, the imperative form in
Chinese is the bare form just like English and Swahili at the same time. Chinese-speaking
children, thus, naturally pick up the imperative form, or the bare form of verbs as their firstverb, i.e., an RIA.
3.

The Truncation Model

Then, what are Root Infinitives and Root Infinitive Analogues? What does it exactly
mean that T in child grammar is not marked for tense or agreement? The findings discussed
so far show the RIAs in Japanese, for example, are the verbs very young children produce
when Tense element is missing. Japanese-speaking children under two, consistently, notoptionally, produce just a single verb form, i.e., V-ta form. Just like other languages, noauxiliary-relative items or C-related items appear then. No nominative Case markers areproduced either. The adverbials related to time such as kinoo (yesterday) are not used with the
RIAs. These empirical facts lead us to conjecture that this is the stage where TP is missing.
There are languages that do not project Tense such as Dravidian languages (Amritavalli andJayaseelan 2005). According to Amritavalli and Jayaseelan (2005), the tense morphology that-368- 368 -Steps in the Emergence of Full Syntactic Structure in Child Grammar (K. Murasugi)

appears on verbs in some clauses is more appropriately labeled aspect.
At around two, in contrast, children speaking Japanese start producing several
conjugated verb forms as well as “erroneous” genitive/dative subjects just like
English-speaking children do. At this stage, non-nominative subjects optionally appear in thesubject position (e.g., *Her eat it (She eats it.) in English). Just like English-speaking
children, children speaking Japanese, for example, optionally mark the subject of the sentence“erroneously” with genitive or dative. Interestingly enough, this stage is observed in a lot of
languages.
The sharp contrast found between the two phases of “Root Infinitives” shown above
indicates that the so-called “Root Infinitive (Analogue) stage” actually has two stages. A
natural hypothesis for the first stage would be to suppose that the sentences in which the(default) verb is not tensed might be those where TP is missing in the child structure as
Truncation Hypothesis (Rizzi 1993/1994), for example, predicts. And the RIAs found at alater stage after two would correspond to the so-called Optional Infinitives. Optional
Infinitives, or the infinitives optionally used in the matrix clauses, are produced when T isthere, but Tense and Agreement features are underspecified as ATOM (Schütze and Wexler
1996) predicts.
The former stage of RIA can be explained neatly by the Truncation Hypothesis. The
Truncation Hypothesis (Rizzi 1993/1994) states that children’s structures can be as complex
as adult structures, but child grammar allows the option of optionally truncating structures. To
be more concrete, adults build their phrase structure all the way to CP because CP is the rootof all clauses, while children might build just a VP or an IP (TP) and stop. According to Rizzi(1993/1994), the axiom that “CP is the root of all clauses” is part of adult grammar. Children,
however, lack the specific knowledge that every well-formed clause is CP in adult grammar(until the initial stage of Root Infinitive stage in our term ends). Until children “acquire” theaxiom, they hypothesize that phrase structures can only go partway up to CP.
This hypothesis clearly explains why the children’s non-finite verbs do not move to I
(T): There is no place for them to move to. This would also explain why auxiliary-related
items never occur with Root Infinitives, if we assume that auxiliary-related items start in I
(T). Under the Truncation Hypothesis, we also expect that there are no elements above IP(TP) that are produced by the children at the Root Infinitive stage. If Root Infinitives are
missing IP (TP), then they should be missing CP as well, and the hypothesis naturally
explains why C-related items are not observed at the stage in question.
The Truncation Hypothesis can also account for the licensing of null subjects in childgrammar. Root Infinitives are likely to occur with null subjects because the infinitive is a
non-finite form, which lacks Tense, and hence it can license null subjects of the type PRO.
Furthermore, we conjecture that the Truncation Hypothesis can also elegantly explain thereason why English-speaking children go through an early stage of acquisition during which-369- 369 -

2008

2012









subjects are base-generated within VP and may optionally stay in their original position
located internal to the predicate (Déprez and Pierce 1993).
It is very well known that English-speaking children, at around the age of two, produce
negative sentences in which negative element occurs to the left of the subject as shown below.
(22)

a. No mommy doing. David turn. (2;00)
b. No lamb have it. No lamb have it. (2;00)
c. No lamb have a chair either (2;00)
d. No dog stay in the room . Don’t dog stay in the room. (2;01)e. No Leila have a turn. (2;01)f.

Never Mommy touch it. (2;01)

g. Not man up here on him head. (2;02)h. No my play my puppet. Play my toys. (2;02)
Déprez and Pierce (1993) argue that the pre-sentential negative element (e.g., no, never, not)is an instance of sentential negation. According to Déprez and Pierce (1993), there is aparameter of nominative Case assignment, and young children start producing such examples
as (22) based on the assumption that nominative Case may be assigned under government byInfl (rather than the assumption that nominative Case is assigned in the Spec-head relation
with Infl). Thus, children produce the sentence-initial negative element as sentential negation
as shown in (22). According to Déprez and Pierce’s (1993) analysis, the structure children
hypothesize for (22a) is (23):
(23)

[IP

[NegP no (negative element) [VP mommy doing]]]Then, why is it the case that subject remains in the VP-internal position in childgrammar? In the adult grammar, the arguments of the verb appear within the Verb Phrase but
they may be forced to leave that position by different principles of grammar. If the principles
are part of Universal Grammar (UG), then, we expect that the principles should be applied
once the sentence in question (meeting the theta theory) is produced. However, children
produce subjects VP-internally without raising it to the Spec of IP (TP).
Given the UG, a possible explanation for the acquisition stage of VP-internal subject inchild grammar would be that there is no position for the subject, which is VP-internallybase-generated, to move to. Children start producing subject in the VP-internal position
because there is no IP (TP).9 This is because the phrase structure children hypothesize is
9

For a different analysis, see Sugisaki (2013).

-370- 370 -Steps in the Emergence of Full Syntactic Structure in Child Grammar (K. Murasugi)

truncated then. Thus, during the stage where the phrase structure is truncated, children
produce such sentences as (22).
This proposal is further supported by the fact that the verbs that children produce
exemplified in (22) are bare forms, or Root Infinitives. The fact that children producing
subjects VP-internally without raising it to the Spec of IP (TP) also produce RIs would
support the hypothesis that there is no I (T) projection at the stage.
However, a detailed analysis of child Japanese indicates that the case might not be so
simple. As we noted above, if Root Infinitives (Analogues) are missing IP (TP), then theyshould be missing the syntactic heads above IP (TP) as well. Japanese-speaking children,
however, do produce sentence-final particles at the RIA stage. The sentence-final particle,
which resides in the position up above the CP layer in the adult grammar is apparently addedon the “truncated” structure. Observe, for instance, (24).
(24)

Buuwa tui-ta nene (Sumihare, 1;09)
candle light-ta Sentence-final particle Sentence-final particle
Intended meaning: Please light the candle.
Literal meaning: The candle lit, didn’t it?

(24) is quite interesting because the Japanese-speaking child Sumihare produces (i) the
intransitive form tuite instead of the transitive form tukete, (ii) the V-ta form (RIA) instead ofimperative form V-te, and crucially, (iii) the sentence-final particle ne followed by tuita, theRIA. Then, does such empirical evidence as (24) indicate that the RIA phenomenon cannot be
explained by the Truncation Hypothesis? In the following section, based on the analysis that
sentence-final particles are Speech Act heads, we argue that the early appearance ofsentence-final particles does not constitute a counter example to the Truncation Hypothesis.
4.

The Co-occurrence of Sentence-final Particles with RIAs

Sentence-final particles are in fact produced often at a very early stage of Japaneseacquisition. Okubo (1967), based on her longitudinal study with a Japanese-speaking child,finds that sentence-final particles such as ne are acquired much earlier than Case particles
such as ga. Murasugi and Fuji (2008b) report that the Modal Reference Effects of RIAs areoften observed with the sentence-final particle na as shown in (25).
(25)

a. Panbread

naa (1;05)
Sentence-final particle‘I want a piece of bread.’-371- 371 -2008

b. Sii
pee

2012









si-ta
naa (1;07) (adult : volition si-tai)do-TA Sentence-final particle‘(I) want to pee.’c. Riinana (1;07)
go down Sentence-final particle‘I want to go down.’
Context: Sumihare is on his father’s shoulder. (Murasugi and Fuji 2008b)
The volition or modal in the early stage are expressed by the -ta form with the sentence-final
particle -na.
There are languages that have particles (derived from a verb whose full lexical meaning
has been lost) which are used to establish discourse relations between the speaker and thehearer (Haegeman and Hill 2011). According to Haegeman and Hill (2011), in West Flemish,a dialect of Dutch, for example, there are sentence-initial and sentence-final discourse
markers, which encode the speaker’s attitude with respect to the (content of the) speech act
and/or with respect to the addressee. The discourse markers are optional in that an utterance
remains grammatical even if they are removed, but their deletion results in a change ininterpretation. There are some “rules” that sentence-final discourse markers in West Flemishobey.
First, sentence-final discourse markers in West Flemish co-occur only in a specified
order. When sentence-final discourse marker né and wè co-occur, né must be to the right ofwè shown in (26a) and (26b).
(26)

a. Men artikel is gedoan wè né.
b. * Men artikel is gedoan né wè.
My paper is done
‘My paper is finished.’ (Haegeman 2010)

When sentence-final discourse markers zè co-occurs with né or wè, né follows zè as shown in(27a,b) but wè precedes zè as in (28a,b).
(27)

a. Men artikel is gedoan zè né.
b. * Men artikel is gedoan né zè.

(28)

a. Men artikel is gedoan wè zè.
b. * Men artikel is gedoan zè wè. (Haegeman 2010)
Second, West Flemish has just two positions for discourse markers. Though né can-372- 372 -Steps in the Emergence of Full Syntactic Structure in Child Grammar (K. Murasugi)

co-occur with zè as in (27a) and with wè as in (26a), and though wè can also co-occur with zè
as in (28a), the three discourse markers cannot co-occur, regardless of the order, as we can seein (29).
(29)

a. * Men artikel is gedoan wè zè né.
b. Men artikel is gedoan wè zè. Né! (Haegeman 2010)(29b) is acceptable because né is clearly set off from the preceding segment.
Sentence-final discourse markers in West Flemish are not clause typers, and theyco-occur with clauses that are independently typed. Though some of them are insensitive toclause type, others are sensitive to the type of the sentence. For example, zè (and its variantghè) co-occurs mainly with declaratives and with some imperatives. With regard tointerrogatives, only rhetorical questions can co-occur with zè/ghè.
The properties found in West Flemish are shared by Japanese sentence-final particles.
Japanese has sentence-initial and sentence-final discourse markers, such as ne, which encode
the speaker’s attitude with respect to the (content of the) speech act and/or with respect to theaddressee. The discourse markers are optional in that an utterance remains grammatical even
if they are removed, but their deletion results in a change in interpretation.
There are also “rules” that sentence-final discourse markers in Japanese obey just as inWest Flemish. The sentence-final particles such as ne, na, and yo, among others, arepragmatic markers used to profile the speaker-hearer relationship in Japanese. The particles
are involved in the licensing of vocatives. The initial vocative has an “appeal” or attention
seeking function, aiming at establishing a discourse relation; the final vocative consolidates
the already established relation of the speaker with an “addressee”. Examples are shown
below:(30)

a. Nee Nee
NE NE

Otoosan, torampu
Daddy
card

siyoo
yo (Koko, 8;03)
do-Vocative Sentence-final particle‘Hey, Daddy, let’s play cards.’
b. Kono kootya-wa oisii
ne (Koko, 8;03)
this tea -Top yummy-is NE‘This tea is tasty, isn’t it?’Just like West Flemish, the sentence-final particles display rigid ordering restrictions asshown in (31).

-373- 373 -

2008

(31)

2012

a. Kobe-no
Kobe-Gen





pan-waoisii yo ne/yo na.
bread-Top tasty‘Kobe’s bread is tasty.’b. * Kobe-no

pan-waoisii ne yo/na yo.

The sequences, yone and yona, are grammatical, but neyo or nayo are ungrammatical as
shown in (31b). When sentence-final discourse markers yo and ne co-occur, ne must be to theright of yo.
Second, just like West Flemish, Japanese basically only has two positions for discourse
markers. Though yo can co-occur with ne (32a) and with na (32b), the three discourse
markers cannot co-occur, regardless of the order as we can see in (33):(32)

a. Taro-wa mikan -otaberuTaro-Top orange-Acc eat

yo ne.

b. Taro-wa mikan -otaberuTaro-Top orange-Acc eat

yo na.

(33) * Taro-wa mikan -otaberuTaro-Top orange-Acc eat

yo ne na.

‘Taro eats oranges.’(33) is only acceptable when na is clearly set off from the preceding segment.10 Just likesentence-final discourse markers in West Flemish, Japanese sentence-final particles arebasically not clause-typers either, and they co-occur with clauses that are independently
typed. For example, yo co-occurs mainly with declaratives and imperatives.
Now, the important question to be addressed here is whether the discourse markers arepart of the CP system or not. In fact, it has been pointed out that the property of the right
periphery of Japanese parallels with that of left periphery in head-initial languages such as
Italian in many respects (Saito 2009), and the discourse markers such as ne, na, and yo, allseem to reside outside the CP system.
According to Saito (2009), to is the complementizer that heads a Report Phrase, which
expresses paraphrases or reports of direct discourse in the sense of Plann (1982); ka is a headof Force Phrase (ForceP), for questions. And no is the complementizer that heads a Finite
Phrase, for propositions. The structure is schematized below.
10(i)Three sentence-final particles are allowed only when wa comes first.
Anata asita
gakko-ni iku wa yo ne.
You tomorrow school-Dat go WA YO NE‘You are going to school tomorrow, aren’t you?’-374- 374 -Steps in the Emergence of Full Syntactic Structure in Child Grammar (K. Murasugi)(34)

a. [CP [CP… [CP… Finite (no)] Force (ka)] Report (to)]b. [CP… [CP… [CP… [CP… Finite (no)] (Topic*)] Force (ka)] Report (to)]c. [CP… [CP… [CP thematic topic [C’[CP [TP ...] Finite (no)] Topic]] Force (ka)]Report (to)]And the discourse markers ne, na, and yo follow ka, which is the sentence-typer.
(35)

a. [Force[Fin[TP Taroo-wa unagi-o taberu] no ] ka] ne-Top eel-Acc eat
Finite Force Sentence-final particle‘I wonder whether or not Taro eats eels.’b. [Force[Fin[TP Taroo-wa unagi-o taberu] no] ka] na
c. [Force[Fin[TP Taroo-wa unagi-o taberu] no] ka] yo

ForceP is a sentence typer, and if the sentence is interrogative, ka appears in the head ofForceP. As (35a-c) indicate, sentence-final particles follow ka, and this shows that thediscourse markers are above ForceP at least. And children acquire such discourse markers as
ne and na earlier than no or ka. Okada and Grinstead (2003), in fact, show that ne appears at
1;11, while no and te appear later in 2;02, and ka appears even later at 2;04, based on the
corpus analysis of Aki (CHILDES).
Sumihare at 1;06, for example, produces na quite clearly when he tries to speak to theaddressee, and the observer (Noji) states that it is around then that the social andcommunicative skills of the child becomes noticeable. Ne is also a discourse marker observed
at a very early stage of Japanese acquisition. Sumihare, for example, distinguishes ne from na
just like adults do: He employs na when he talks to himself, while he employs ne when hetalks to the addressee who holds him, as the contrast between (36b) and (36c) indicates:(36)

a. …ne (1;07)
Sentence-final particle‘isn’t it?’ (Sumihare pronounces ne clearly.)
b. Tyunmiennaa (talking to himself) (1;09)
the plane is-not-visible sentence-final particle‘(I) cannot see the plane.’c. Tyunmien
ne (talking to father, the addressee who holds him)(1;09)
the plane is-not-visible sentence-final particle‘(I) cannot see the plane.’
In fact, it has been noted by many researchers that some of the discourse markers are-375- 375 -

2008

2012







acquired at a very early stage of language acquisition. Shirai, Shirai and Furuta (1999), forinstance, based on the corpus analysis of four Japanese monolingual children’s longitudinal
data (Aki 1;05-3;00, Ryo 1;03-3;00, Ari 1;06-3;00 and Kok 1;09-3;00 from CHILDES),
observe that every child began to use sentence-final particles when their MLU (Mean Lengthof Utterances) was below 1.2 as shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Sentence-final particles each child began to produce (Shirai, Shirai and Furuta 1999)
Name

Age

MLU

SFPs

 AKI

2;00

1.1

ne, no

 RYO

1;10

1.1

Ne

 ARI

1;06

1.2

ne, yo, te, na

 KOK

1;09

1.1

ne, no, yo, te, na

Figure 3 shows when the four children came to use sentence-final particles and when they
productively came to use them. The onset is marked by the root of an arrow, and the
productive use is marked by the head.
Figure 3: The onset of sentence-final particles (Shirai, Shirai and Furuta 1999)

Here, most crucially, as shown in (37), the discourse markers are observed at the RIA Stage,
before the full conjugation of the verbs appears in the production. The examples in (37)indicate that the discourse markers follow nominal elements, RIAs, and mimetic/
onomatopoeic expressions. Note here that na is used in the adult way as a separate item asshown in (37f) as well (just like ne in (36a)).

-376- 376 -Steps in the Emergence of Full Syntactic Structure in Child Grammar (K. Murasugi)(37)

a. Onbuna (1;08)
Hold-me-on-your back Sentence-final particle‘Please hold me on your back.’b. Attiover there

i-ta
go-TA

na (1;07) (volition) (talking to his mother, the addressee)
Sentence-final particle‘(I) want to go over there’
c. Panbread

naa(1;05)
Sentence-final particle‘I want a piece of bread.’d. Siipee

si-ta
naa (1;07) (adult : volition si-tai)do-TA Sentence-final particle‘(I) want to pee.’e. Riinana (1;07)
go down Sentence-final particle‘I want to go down.’
Context: Sumihare is on his father’s shoulder. (Murasugi and Fuji 2008b)f.

….na (talking to his daddy) (Sumiahre, 1;05)

Now, the question is why it is the case that such sentence-final particles as ne and na follow
any syntactic constituent so productively. Crucially, it is intriguing that the sentence-final
particles are produced as separate items, i.e., ne and na follow null phrases (as (36a) and(37f)) in child Japanese.
Here, note that the difference between the discourse markers in adult West Flemish andadult Japanese resides in the fact that the former has them at the sentence-initial or final
position only11, but the latter allows the discourse markers to be attached basically on any
syntactic constituent.
(38)

Neko(-ga) ne, yane-kara ne, otita ne
Cat (-Nom)roof-fromfell‘The cat fell from the roof.’

Japanese discourse markers can follow NPs, PPs, and VPs, and so on, as far as the structure
constitutes a well-formed syntactic constituent. Then, the co-occurence of RIA with asentence-final particle in child grammar would indicate that a discourse marker or a Speech
11

Thanks to Lillian Haegeman (p.c.) for the information.

-377- 377 -

2008

2012







Act element can be preceded by the truncated element or a child’s syntactic constituent, even
if there is no T head, and even if there is no phonetically realized sentence.
If Speech Act elements are acquired earlier than TP and CP, then, as we noted before, we
expect that the sentence-final particles are acquired earlier than complementizers. In fact, thispredication is borne out. Although it is well-known that no, the head of FiniteP in the CP
layer, is acquired at a very early stage of language acquisition, it appears in child production
later than such discourse markers as na and ne.
(39)

a. Nenne tanoo (Sumihare, 1;10)
sleep Past NO‘(I) am sleeping with my daddy.’b. Katai no (Sumihare, 1;10)
is-hard NO‘(This candy) is (very) hard.’c. Katai yo zya no (talking to his mother, the addressee) (1;10)
hard
is NO
‘(It) is very hard and difficult to take.’d. Teenmimetic

no (talking to his mother, the addressee) (1;10)NO(Context: sitting on the Kotatsu)
e. Tantan-wa? Tantan-wa, no, no (talking to his mother, the addressee) (1;10)
Tantan-top tantan-top NO NO(Context: Putting a pencil on the floor near the window)
The observer Noji states that he does not understand the intended meaning of (39d) and (39e).
However, the data at least show that no indicates the end point of the sentence. And they
appear only after 1;10, much later than the stage where the discourse markers are produced.
Furthermore, Sumihare produces such discourse markers as ne and na earlier than the head ofForceP ka, too. Exactly like what Okada and Grinstead (2003) find based on the corpus
analysis of Aki (CHILDES), Sumihare starts producing ka at 2;03, much later than ne and na,
and even after no.
Interestingly enough, sequences of two discourse markers (or sentence-final particles)
such as yo ne start to appear a bit before no does in the production. Observe examples in (40).

-378- 378 -Steps in the Emergence of Full Syntactic Structure in Child Grammar (K. Murasugi)(40)

a. Atui yo ne (Sumihare, 1:09)
hot YO NE‘It is hot, isn't it?’b. Hairanyo ne (Sumiare, 1;09)
dosn’t fit YO NE‘(The feet) do not fit (in the socks).’c. Oimo oiti
yo ne. (Sunmiare, 1;10)
potato delicious YO NE‘The potatoes (are) delicious, aren't they?’d. Toofu kita yo ne. (Sumihare, 1;11)
Tofu came YO NE‘A man selling Tofu came over, didn’t he?’At around the time children find out the nature of sentence-final particles, i.e., that more than
one sentence-final particle can be attached to a phrase, the head of FinP and the verbal
conjugations start to appear.
Given these descriptive findings, let us come back to our original question. Does theearly appearance of the sentence-final particles constitute a counter example to the Truncation
Hypothesis because the sentence-final particles are the uppermost element above CP? A
detailed analysis of child Japanese indicates that it is not the case.
Japanese-speaking children do produce sentence-final particles at the RIA stage and thesentence-final particles look as if they are added on the “truncated” structures, or phases, as
shown in (24), repeated below:(41)(=(24)) Buuwa tui-ta nene (Sumihare, 1;09)
candle light-ta Sentence-final particle Sentence-final particle
Intended meaning: Please light the candle.
Literal meaning: The candle lit, didn’t it?
However, given that sentence-final particles follow any syntactic constituent in adultJapanese, and given the fact that child discourse markers not only follow various constituents
but also appear as separate items as shown in (36a) and (37f), the child structure of thesentence-final particles following such a truncated phrase as an RIA would be something like
(42).
(42)

[XP
] ne/na
X= Syntactic Constituent-379- 379 -

2008

2012







XP is a well-formed syntactic constituent, and can be phonetically realized null in such anargument-drop language as Japanese. Children produce truncated sentences or a phoneticallynull form, followed by a discourse particle that links the speaker and the addressee. Tense
Phrase is projected only at around the stage where two particles come to appear in a sequence
as in (40) and several conjugation forms of verbs come to be used.
The analysis given above presupposes that the discourse markers or the elements above
the CP layer are directly attached on the child RIAs. It should be mentioned here, however,that adult RIAs or tense-less phrases with strong speech act is somehow difficult to be
selected by the discourse markers. In Japanese, the verb-ta form is RIA for both childgrammar and adult grammar. Even in the adult grammar, V-ta forms, such as “Kaetta!
Kaetta! (Go back! Go back!)” given in (11), for example, cannot be directly followed by suchdiscourse markers as ne and na.
(43)

a. Sassato
Kaet-ta!
Kaet-ta!
immediately go back-TA go back-TA‘Go back immediately.’b. * Sassato
immediately

Kaet-tane/na!
Kaet-ta ne/na!
go back-TA Sentence-Final Particle‘Go back immediately.’
It is quite intriguing that children, unlike adults, use such sentence-final particles as ne andna with RIA at the age of one as shown in (25). Given our analysis so far, the co-occurrenceof the child RIA and the sentence-final particles would be explained naturally by assumingthat children do not fully know the syntactic properties of the sentence-final particles at thestage yet, although they know the pragmatic properties associated with them.
Before closing this section, it might be worth mentioning that a cross-linguistic data insupport of the analysis presented so far can be also found. The emergence of discourse
markers at a very early stage of language acquisition is commonly observed in child Chinese.
According to Yang (2010), for example, Chinese-speaking children start producing discourse
markers (sentence-final particles) such as a at around the age of one.
(44)

Qui a (1;04)
ball Discourse-marker‘It is the ball.’

The fact that the discourse markers are probably produced earlier than the RIA (theimperative form) and the tense/aspect marker le supports the analysis presented in this-380- 380 -Steps in the Emergence of Full Syntactic Structure in Child Grammar (K. Murasugi)

paper.12
Children’s phrase structures are truncated. However, the Truncation Hypothesis does notentail that young children do not know the semantic/pragmatic properties of the uppermost
element in the phrase structure. The evidence from Japanese indicates that children in factknow the semantic/pragmatic properties of the discourse elements and use them just like
adults even at the age of one. Just like a jigsaw puzzle, children would assemble the borderpieces first to get a defined area to work in. Information regarding discourse relations can thus
guide the child to identify the missing tense-related items between the Speech Act Phrase andthe truncated structure. This leads us to suggest that “discourse bootstrapping” should be
probably added to the child's toolkit.
5.

Conclusion

In this paper, based on children’s production of discourse markers and RIAs in Japaneseand Chinese, we presented evidence for the Truncation Hypothesis proposed by Rizzi(1993/1994) for children’s early syntactic structure.
We argued that Root Infinitives (RIs) and Root Infinitive Analogues (RIAs) are
non-finite (infinitival) verbal forms which children at around one to two years of age use inmatrix (root) clauses, where they are not possible in their adult grammar, and that there are
two stages: (i) the stage where there is no T-projection, and (ii) the stage where TP isprojected, but the features of Tense/Agreement are yet underspecified.
Note here that the forms of child RI(A)s per se are not different from adult ones. As
Akmajian (1984) first drew attention to “mad magazine sentences,” infinitive constructions
are used in matrix contexts in adult English and adult Spanish, for example.
(45)

a. Me go to that party?! I would never do such a thing! (English)
b. John go to the movies?! No way, man!

(46)

Yo ir a esa fiesta?! Jamás! (Spanish) (Etxepare and Grohmann 2005)

Mad magazine sentences or adult RI(A)s consist of two overtly expressed parts: the RootInfinitive proper, orthographically indicated by ‘?!’ (evoking a question-like exclamation),and the Coda (a further exclamation that seems to deny the truth value of the mad magazinesentences) (Etxepare and Grohmann 2005). Child Chinese RIAs are in fact imperatives inadult Chinese; child Japanese RIAs are strong imperatives (and past declaratives) in adultJapanese; child Korean RIAs are modal phrases in adult Korean. Child RIAs are possible“well-formed” verbs in the adult grammar.
12

See Murasugi and Nakatani (2005, 2007) and Dejima, Nakatani and Murasugi (2009) for evidence
based on their longitudinal studies that the properties of Speech Act Phrase are found even at thebabbling stage in Japanese acquisition.

-381- 381 -

2008

2012







The very young children’s use of non-finite verbs in root contexts is a universal
phenomenon. Whether or not the target language is pro-drop or argument-drop, children
universally go through the very early non-finite verb stage. Yet, there are morphologicalvariations: RI(A)s can be infinitives, bare verbs, participles, or certain (surrogate) full forms.
The morphological parameter that determines whether or not the stem can stand by itself isacquired at the very early stage of language acquisition. This finding indicates that evenduring the stage where the phrase structure is truncated, very young children know themorphological property of the target language. Without being directly taught by caretakers,
children voluntarily express the intentional and extensional meanings by picking up their first
verbal forms among the possible non-finite forms in their mother tongue. The early
emergence of the morphological knowledge would constitute an important ground for the
proposal of the inborn grammatical principles, parameters, and the Universal Grammar(Chomsky 1965, Huang 1982).
The only difference between child grammar and adult grammar is in that (i) the childroot clause is not CP like adults’, but the phrase structure may be truncated, as Rizzi(1993/1994) argues, at a very early stage of grammar acquisition until around two or so, and(ii) even after TP comes to be projected after the age of two, features in Tense/Agreement areunderspecified initially, thereby genitive subjects or quirky subjects (which are not possible in
the adult target grammar) are optionally used with the optional infinitives, as Schütze andWexler (1996) suggest. With regard to the trigger for children to attain the adult axiom that
“CP is the root of all clauses”, we suggested in this paper that acquiring the possible selectionof sentence-final particles might bootstrap the children’s knowledge of the missing part intheir syntactic structure.
The argument led us to a suggestion for the learnability theory. For children to acquire
their mother tongue, “discourse bootstrapping” would be employed to acquire the fullsyntactic structure. Syntactic and semantic bootstrapping would be useful toolkits for children
to acquire language in a bottom-up way, while discourse bootstrapping would be a usefultoolkit for children to acquire the full syntactic structure in a top-down way.

References
Akmajian, A. (1984) “Sentence Types and the Form-function Fit,” Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 2, 1–23.
Aksu-Koç, A. and F. N. Ketrez (2003) “Early Verbal Morphology in Turkish: Emergence ofInflections.” In D. Bittner, W. U. Dressler and M. Kilani-Schoch, eds., Mini-paradigms andthe Emergence of Verb Morphology, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 27–52.
Aljenaie, K. (2000) “The Emergence of Tense and Agreement in Kuwaiti Children Speaking Arabic.”
In R. Ingham and P. Kerswill, eds., Reading Working Paper in Linguistics 4, 1–24.
Amritavalli, R. and K. A. Jayaseelan (2005) “Finiteness and Negation in Dravidian.” In G. Cinque and
R. Kayne, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, Oxford University Press,
New York, 178–220.

-382- 382 -Steps in the Emergence of Full Syntactic Structure in Child Grammar (K. Murasugi)

Bar-Shalom, E. and W. Snyder (2001) “Descriptive Imperatives in Child Russian and Early Correct
Use of Verbal Morphology,” Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conferenceon Language Development 25, 94–101.
Bel, A. (2001) “Sujetos Nulos y Sujetos Explícitos en las Gramáticas Iniciales del Castellano y el
Catalán [Null Subjects and Explicit Subjects in the Initial Grammars of Castilian and
Catalan],” Revista Española de Lingüística 31 (2), 537–562.
Chien, L-Y. (2009) Is There a Root Infinitives or Root Infinitive Analogue Stage in Early Mandarin?,
MA thesis, National Tsing-Hua University, Taiwan.
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Cinque, G. (2004) ““Restructuring” and Functional Structure.” In A. Belletti, ed., Structures andBeyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 3, Oxford University Press, New York,
132–191.
Deen, K. U. (2002) The Omission of Inflection Prefixes in the Acquisition of Nairobi Swahili, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Dejima, M., T. Nakatani and K. Murasugi (2009) “The Emergence of Speech Act Phrase: Evidence
from a Longitudinal Study of Two Japanese-speaking Infants,” Nanzan Linguistics 5, 17–39.
Déprez, V. and A. Pierce (1993) “Negation and Functional Projections in Early Grammar,” Linguistic
Inquiry 24 (1), 25–67.
Etxepare, R. and K. Grohmann (2005) “Towards a Grammar of Adult Root Infinitives,” Proceedingsof the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 129–137.
Galasso, J. (2011) Minimum of English Grammar: An Introduction to Feature Theory with a Special
Note on the Nature of Early Child Grammars of English, University Readers, San Diego.
Grinstead, J. (1994) The Emergence of Nominative Case Assignment in Child Catalan and Spanish,
MA thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
Grinstead, J. (1998) Subjects, Sentential Negation and Imperatives in Child Spanish and Catalan,
Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Guasti, M. T. (1993/1994) “Verb Syntax in Italian Child Grammar: Finite and Non-finite Forms,”
Language Acquisition 3 (1), 1–40.
Haegeman, L. (1995) “Root Infinitives, Tense, and Truncated Structures in Dutch,” Language
Acquisition 4 (3), 205–255.
Haegeman, L. (2010) “The Internal Syntax of Adverbial Clauses.” In K. Grohmann and I. Tsimpli,
eds., Exploring the Left Periphery, Lingua Thematic Issue 120, 628–648.
Haegeman, L. and V. Hill (2011) “The Syntacticization of Discourse,” unpublished ms., Ghent
University and University of New Brunswick-SJ.
Hoekstra, T. and N. Hyams (1998) “Aspects of Root Infinitives,” Lingua 106, 91–112.
Huang, J. C.-T. (1982) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT.
Hyams, N. (2005) “Child Non-finite Clauses and the Mood-aspect Connection: Evidence from Child
Greek.” In P. Kempchinsky and R. Slabakova, eds., The Syntax, Semantics and Acquisitionof Aspect, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 293–316.
Kawai, M. (2006) “Raising to Object in Japanese: Small Clause Analysis,” Linguistic Inquiry 37 (2),329–339.
Kim, M. and C. Phillips (1998) “Complex Verb Constructions in Child Korean: Overt Markers of
Covert Functional Structure.” In A. Greenhill, M. Hughes, H. Littlefield and H. Walsh, eds.,
Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development 2,
Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA, 430–441.
Lillo-Martin, D. and R. M. Quadros (2009) “Two in One: Evidence for Imperatives as the Analogue to
RIs from ASL and LSB.” In J. Chandlee, M. Franchini, S. Lord and G. Rheiner, eds.,-383- 383 -

2008

2012









Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development 1,
Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA, 302–312.
Lin, T.-H. J. (2006) “Complement-to-specifier Movement in Mandarin Chinese,” unpublished ms.,
National Tsing-Hua University, Taiwan.
Lin, T.-H. J. (2008) “Finiteness of Clauses and Raising of Arguments in Mandarin Chinese,”
unpublished ms., National Tsing-Hua University, Taiwan.
Liu, H.-Y. (2009) “The Acquisition of Mandarin Aspects and Modals: Evidence from the Acquisitionof Negation,” Language and Linguistics 10 (1), 133–160.
Londe, Z. (2004) “The Hungarian Case of Root Innitives: Too Many Cases No Place for RootInnitives,” unpublished ms., University of California, Los Angeles.
Mahajan, A. (2004) “On the Origin of Non-nominative Subjects.” In P. Bhaskararao and K. V.
Subbarao, eds., Non-nominative Subjects 1, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 283–300.
Montrul, S. (2004) The Acquisition of Spanish: Morphosyntactic Development in Monolingual and
Bilingual L1 Acquisition and in Adult L2 Acquisition, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Murasugi, K. (2009) “What Japanese-speaking Children’s Errors Tell Us about Syntax,” paper
presented at the Asian GLOW VII, English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad,
India, February 28.
Murasugi, K. and C. Fuji (2008a) “Root Infinitives: the Parallel Route that Japanese- andKorean-speaking Children Step in,” paper presented at Japanese-Korean Linguistics
Conference 18, City University of New York, November 13. (Appeared in Japanese andKorean Linguistics 18, CSLI Publications, Stanford, 3-15, 2011.)
Murasugi, K. and C. Fuji (2008b) “Root Infinitives in Japanese and the Late Acquisition of
Head-movement,” BUCLD 33 Proceedings supplement. http://www.bu.edu/ linguistics/
BUCLD/ supplement33/Murasugi.pdf
Murasugi, K., C. Fuji and T. Hashimoto (2007) “What’s Acquired Later in an Agglutinative
Language,” paper presented at the Asian GLOW VI, Chinese University of Hong Kong,
December 27.(Appeared in Nanzan Linguistics 6, 47-78, 2011)
Murasugi, K. and T. Nakatani (2005) “The Ontology of Functional Categories,” paper presented at the
Asian GLOW V, New Delhi, India, October 7.
Murasugi, K. and T. Nakatani (2007) “Very Early Language Acquisition: A View from Japanese,”
paper presented at the workshop on Early Child Phonology, Chinese University of Hong
Kong, August 17.
Murasugi, K., T. Nakatani and C. Fuji (2010) “The Roots of Root Infinitive Analogues: The Surrogate
Verb Forms Common in Adult and Child Grammars,” poster-presented at BUCLD 34,
Boston University, November 7.
Murasugi, K. and E. Watanabe (2009) “Case Errors in Child Japanese and the Implication for the
Syntactic Theory,” Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Generative Approaches toLanguage Acquisition in North America (GALANA), 153–164.
Nakatani, T. and K. Murasugi (2009) “Gengo Kakutoku ni okeru Shusetsu Futeishi Gensho:
Zyudanteki Kansatsuteki Kenkyu [Root Infinitive Analogues as Non-finite Surrogate Forms:
A Longitudinal Study of a Japanese-speaking Child],” Academia 86, 59–94.
Nicoleta, S. (2006) “Towards an Adult-like Verbal Paradigm: The Optional Infinitive Stage inRomanian.” http://www.univ-ovidius.ro/litere/Anale/Fisiere/06%20volumul%20XVII%2020
06/02%20Focus%20on%20Language/19%20Nicoleta%20Sava%20tot.pdf, Central andEastern European Online Library. (Source: Analele tiinifice ale Universitii Ovidius
Constana. Seria Filologie [The Annals of Ovidius University Constanta - Philology] 17,
255–268).
Noji, J. (1973–1977) Yooji no Gengo Seikatu no Jittai [The Nature of an Infant’s Language] I-IV,
Bunka Hyoron Shuppan, Hiroshima.

-384- 384 -Steps in the Emergence of Full Syntactic Structure in Child Grammar (K. Murasugi)

Okada, K., and J. Grinstead (2003) “The Emergence of CP in Child Japanese.” In J. M. Liceras , H.
Zobl and H. Goodluck, eds., Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second
Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2002), Cascadilla Proceedings Project,
Somerville, MA, 213-218.
Okubo, A. (1967) Youji Gengo no Hattatu [The Development of Child Language], Tokyodou
Shuppan, Tokyo.
Phillips, C. (1995) “Syntax at Age Two: Cross-linguistic Differences.” In C. Schütze, J. Ganger and K.
Broihier, eds., Papers on Language Processing and Acquisition, MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics 26, 325–382.
Phillips, C. (1996) “Root Infinitives are Finite,” BUCLD 20, 588–599.
Pierce, A. (1992) Language Acquisition and Syntactic Theory: A Comparative Analysis of French andEnglish Child Grammars, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Plann, S. (1982) “Indirect Questions in Spanish,” Linguistic Inquiry 13, 297–312.
Poeppel, D. and K. Wexler (1993) “The Full Competence Hypothesis of Clause Structure in Early
German,” Language 69 (1), 1–33.
Pratt, A. and J. Grinstead (2007) “Optional Infinitives in Child Spanish,” Proceedings of the 2nd
Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition in North America(GALANA), 351–362.
Pye, C. (2001) “The Acquisition of Finiteness in K’iche’Maya,” BUCLD 25, 645–656.
Radford, A. (1990) Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax: The Nature of Early Child
Grammars of English, Blackwell, Oxford.
Radford, A. (1991) “The Acquisition of Morphosyntax of Finite Verbs in English.” In J. M. Meisel,ed., The Acquisition of Verb Placement: Functional Categories and V2 Phenomena in
Language Acquisition, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 23–62.
Radford, A. (1999) “Children’s Possessive Structures,” unpublished ms., University of Essex.
Rizzi, L. (1993/1994) “Some Notes on Linguistic Theory and Language Development: The Case of
Root Infinitives,” Language Acquisition 3, 371–393.
Rus, D. (2004) “Embedded Imperatives in Slovenian,” unpublished ms., Georgetown University.
Saito, M. (2007) “Notes on East Asian Argument Ellipsis,” Language Research 43, 203–227.
Saito, M. (2009) “Selection and Clause Types in Japanese,” paper presented at the International
Conference on Sentence Types: Ten Years after, Universität Frankfurt am Main, June 27.
Salustri, M. and N. Hyams (2003) “Is There an Analogue to the RI Stage in the Null Subject
Languages?”, BUCLD 27, 692–703.
Salustri, M. and N. Hyams (2006) “Looking for the Universal Core of the RI stage.” In V. Torrens and
L. Escobar, eds., The Acquisition of Syntax in Romance Languages, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam, 159–182.
Sano, T. (1995) Roots in Language Acquisition: A Comparative Study of Japanese and European
Languages, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Sawada, N. and K. Murasugi (2011) “A Cross-linguistic Approach to the ‘Erroneous’ Genitive
Subjects: Underspecification of Tense in Child Grammar Revisited,” Selected Proceedingsof the 4th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition in North America(GALANA), Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, MA, 209–226.
Sawada, N., K. Murasugi and C. Fuji (2010) “A Theoretical Account for the ‘Erroneous’ Genitive
Subjects in Child Japanese and the Specification of Tense,” BUCLD 34 Proceedings
supplement. http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/BUCLD/Supp34/Sawada Naoko.pdf
Schütze, C. and K. Wexler (1996) “Subject Case Licensing and English Root Infinitives.” In A.
Stringfellow, D. Cahana-Amitay, E. Hughes and A. Zukowski, eds., Proceedings of the 20th
Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development 2, Cascadilla Press,
Somerville, MA, 670–681.

-385- 385 -

2008

2012









Shirai, J., H. Shirai and Y. Furuta (1999) “On the Acquisition of Sentence-final Particles in Japanese.”
In M. Perkins and S. Howard, eds., New Directions in Language Development andDisorders, Plenum, New York, 243–250.
Sugisaki, K. (2013) “VP-internal Subjects in Child English Revisited,” paper presented at the 17th
Workshop of the International Research Project on Comparative Syntax and Language
Acquisition, Nanzan University, February 16.
Takahashi, D. (in press.) “Argument Ellipsis, Antiagreement, and Scrambling.” In M. Saito, ed.,Japanese Syntax in Comparative Perspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 394–422.
Torrens, V. (1995) “The Acquisition of the Functional Category Inflection in Spanish and Catalan.” In
C. Schütze, J. Ganger and K. Broihier, eds., Papers on Language Processing andAcquisition, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 26, 451–472.
Varlokosta, S., A. Vainikka and B. Rohrbacher (1996) “Root Infinitives without Infinitives,” BUCLD
20, 816–827.
Wijnen, F., M. Kempen and S. Gillis (2001) “Root Infinitives in Dutch Early Child Language: An
Effect of Input?”, Journal of Child Language 28, 629–660.
Yang, X. (2010) “CP and the Left Periphery in Early Child Mandarin Chinese: The Case of Sentence
Final Particles,” poster-presented at the Asian GLOW VIII, Beijing Language and Culture
University, August 13.

-386- 386 -CONDITIONS ON JAPANESE PHRASE STRUCTURE:
FROM MORPHOLOGY TO PRAGMATICS *Mamoru Saito
Nanzan University

1. Introduction
The elimination of phrase structure rules in favor of X’-theory was made possible byproposals of independent principles that yield much of the information stipulated in theformulation of those rules. It is currently assumed in the Minimalist research that phrase
structure is constructed by the minimal operation Merge, which takes two syntactic objects
and forms their union. (See Chomsky 1995a, 2012.) Needless to say, Merge, taken by itself,
vastly overgenerates. It is then examined how certain derivations crash and fail to generate
outputs. It is also assumed that some derivations converge, but send information to the C-I or
P-A interface that can only be interpreted as gibberish. The purpose of this paper is to
examine four phenomena in Japanese that might fall under the latter case.
The phenomena that I take up are (i) the uniqueness condition on modals, (ii) thetransitivity harmony phenomenon on complex verb formation, (iii) the hierarchy ofcomplementizers, and (iv) the distributions of discourse particles. The following section
concerns modals. Ueda (2007), among others, shows that a Japanese clause can contain at
most one modal. I argue that this should be attributed to the selectional properties of themodals. Many are verbal suffixes and morphologically select V or V-v (m-selection). The
others semantically select T (s-selection). Then, if a modal merges with a ModalP to yield astructure with two modals, a problem arises either with morphology or with s-selection. In
Section 3, I discuss what Kageyama (1993) calls lexical complex verbs, instantiated in (1).
(1) Taroo-ga
ana-ni suberi-oti-ta
Taroo-NOM hole-to slip-fall-Past‘Taroo slipped and fell into a hole’
He demonstrates that those complex verbs must consist of two verbs that are uniform withrespect to the presence/absence of an external -role. For example, an unergative verb can
combine with a transitive verb or with another unergative verb, but not with an unaccusativeverb. I first argue that a characteristic property of those complex verbs is that each of the* I would like to thank Tomoko Haraguchi for helpful discussions. Section 2 is based on discussions
with her, and Section 5 is a summary of our joint paper, Saito and Haraguchi (2012). I also benefited
from the comments and suggestions of many other people, including Norbert Hornstein, Richie Kayne,
Hideki Kishimoto, Keiko Murasugi, Paul Portner, Ian Roberts, and Kensuke Takita.

-387-

2008

2012









component verbs independently participates in the selectional relations in the syntax. Then, I
show that Kageyama’s generalization follows from the s-selection requirements of v*/v.
I turn to the hierarchy of complementizers in Section 4. It is shown in Saito (2012) thatthe three complementizers no, ka and to are in the hierarchical relation no (Finite) < ka (Force- question) < to (Report), as illustrated in (2).
(no)] ka] (to)] minna-ni(2) Taroo-wa [CP [CP [CP kare-no imooto-ga soko-ni i-ta
Taroo-TOP [CP [CP [CP he-GEN sister-NOM there-at be-Past no ka to all-DAT
tazune-ta
inquire-Past‘Taroo asked everyone if his sister was there’
I suggest that this hierarchy reflects the semantics of those complementizers as well as the sselection requirement of no. Section 5 concerns discourse particles as in (3).
(3) Hanako-wa soko-ni i-ta(wa) (yo) (ne)Hanako-TOP there-at be-Past wa yo ne‘Hanako was there, wasn’t she?’
These discourse particles are associated with specific speech acts; wa and yo are employed
for assertion and ne solicits response. As discussed by Endo (2010), among others, they too
exhibit a hierarchy. For example, the three particles in (3) must appear in the order indicated.
I argue, along the lines of Saito and Haraguchi (2012), that wa occupies the lowest position as
it s-selects T and that ne must follow yo for the composit speech act to be coherent.
If the discussion in this paper is on the right track, Japanese phrase structure is heavily
constrained by morphology and s-selection, as well as by semantic and speech act
compatibility. This is observed in a wide range of phenomena from complex verbs to
discourse particles. There is no need to stipulate specific constraints or to postulate specifichierarchical structures to capture the observed generalizations.

2. The Uniqueness Condition on Modals in JapaneseIn the Japanese syntax literature, ‘modal’ often refers to a category of the clause-final
elements that express modality or force and do not carry tense. Ueda (2007) classifies them inthe two groups shown in (4).
(4) a. E(pitemic)-modals: daroo (surmise), desyoo (formal surmise), mai (negative surmise)b. U(tterance)-modals: ro/e (imperative), (i)nasai (formal imperative), na (negativeimperative), yoo (invitation), (i)masyoo (formal invitation), yoo (volition), mai(negative volition)-388- 388 -Conditions on Japanese Phrase Structure (M. Saito)

She assumes the hierarchy in (5), and at the same time, observes that two modals cannot cooccur in the same clause. The observation is confirmed by the examples in (6).
(5) [U-modalP [E-modalP [TP … T ] E-modal] U-modal](6) a. Kimi-wa soko-e ik-u
daroo (*na)
don’tyou-TOP there-to go-Pres. will
‘Don’t go there (Don’t be going there)’b. Taroo-wa soko-e ik-u
mai (*daroo)
Taroo-TOP there-to go-Pres. won’t will
‘Taroo won’t go there (I guess Taroo won’t go there)’I argue in this section that this uniqueness condition on modals follows from their lexical
properties.1
It should be noted here that English modals exhibit a similar uniqueness condition. Thus,(7a) is totally out although it is synonymous with the grammatical (7b).
(7) a. *John may can solve the problem
b. John may be able to solve the problem
It has long been observed that English modals can occur only in finite contexts and hence,cannot follow another modal. This suggests that they have a morphological requirement tomerge with an affixal tense. I assume that a similar approach should be pursued for theparallel case in Japanese. Yet, the situation is slightly different as Japanese modals, bydefinition, do not carry tense.
First, it seems plausible that all the modals in (4) take propositional complements.
Propositions can take the syntactic forms of a vP (as in small clauses), a TP and a ModalP, forexample. Then, this by itself does not exclude the multiple occurrences of modals in (6).
However, each modal has additional lexical requirements. Let’s examine the imperative ro/e
first. This element is a suffix that attaches to verb stems. As shown in (8), ro is employed forverb stems that end in vowels and e for those that end in consonants.
(8) a. Taroo-wa sore-o tabe-ro
Taroo-TOP it-ACC eat-Imp.
‘Taroo, eat it’1

The material in this section developed out of discussions with Tomoko Haraguchi over the last
couple of years. See Haraguchi (2012) for an analysis that is different but shares the same generalapproach.

-389- 389 -

2008

2012









b. Taroo-wa soko-ni ik-e
Taroo-TOP there-to go-Imp.
‘Taroo, go there’
The suffixal nature of ro/e automatically limits its distribution. For example, if it takes a TP
complement, then T intervenes and blocks its morphological merger with the verb, as
illustrated in (9).
(9) a. *Taroo-wa sore-o tabe-ru-ro
Taroo-TOP it-ACC eat-Pres.-Imp.
b.

ModalP
Modal’
TP

Modal
ro

T’
vP

T
v’

VP

ru
v

V
tabe
The only morphologically permissible option is for it to take a vP complement. In this case,the suffix can successfully merge with V (or V-v complex). Significantly, ro/e cannot take a
ModalP as its complement because the intervening modal blocks the morphological merger
just like T. There is an independent reason then that ro/e cannot follow another modal.
Most of the other utterance modals have the same suffixal property. Among them are(i)nasai (formal imperative), yoo (invitation, volition), and (i)masyoo (formal invitation).
Examples of (i)masyoo are shown in (10).2(10) a. Sore-o tabe-masyoo
it-ACC eat-let’s‘Let’s eat it’2

The form masyoo appears when the verb stem ends in a vowel, and imasyoo when the verb stemends in a consonant. I assume that the morpheme is imasyoo, and that the initial vowel of the suffix isdeleted by the following morphophonological rule when the stem ends in a vowel:(i) V  Ø / V + __ C

-390- 390 -Conditions on Japanese Phrase Structure (M. Saito)

b. Soko-e ik-imasyoo
there-to go-let’s‘Let’s go there’
I conclude then that they all must take vP complements in order to morphologically merge
with V.
The epistemic modals daroo (surmise) and desyoo (formal surmise) also exhibit a regularpattern. They always take a TP complement. The head T can be present or past, and can be averbal tense (ru/ta) or an adjectival tense (i/katta). This is shown in (11).
(11) a.

Taroo-wa sore-o tabe-ru /tabe-ta daroo
Taroo-TOP it-ACC eat-Pres./eat-Past will
‘I guess Taroo eats/ate it’b.

samu-i /samu-katta daroo
Soko-no huyu-wa
there-GEN winter-TOP cold-Pres./cold-Past will
‘I guess the winter there is/was cold’(12) shows that they cannot be employed as verbal or adjectival suffixes.3(12) a. *Taroo-wa sore-o tabe-daroo
Taroo-TOP it-ACC eat-will‘I guess Taroo eats it’
samu-daroob. *Soko-no huyu-wa
there-GEN winter-TOP cold-will‘I guess the winter there is cold’Thus, daroo (and desyoo) takes a tensed proposition as a complement and s-selects T. It
follows that they cannot have a ModalP as a complement.
The situation with na (negative imperative) is slightly more complex but is similar. It
takes a TP with verbal present tense as its complement. The following examples meet thiscondition:

3

There is another modal karoo, which is similar in meaning to daroo but is a suffix that attaches toadjectival stems. Thus, (12b) becomes grammatical when karoo is substituted for daroo as in (i).
(i) Soko-no huyu-wa
samu-karoo
there-GEN winter-TOP cold-will‘I guess the winter there is cold’-391- 391 -

2008

2012





(13) a. Taroo-wa sore-o tabe-ru na
Taroo-TOP it-ACC eat-Pres. don’t‘Taroo, don’t eat it’nab. Taroo-wa soko-ni ik-u
Taroo-TOP there-to go-Pres. don’t‘Taroo, don’t go there’(14) shows that na is not a verbal suffix and also cannot take TPs headed by past or adjectival
present.
(14) a. *Taroo-wa sore-o tabe-na
Taroo-TOP it-ACC eat-don’t‘Taroo, don’t eat it’
b. *Taroo-wa sore-o tabe-ta na
Taroo-TOP it-ACC eat-Past don’tc. *Taroo-wa kimuzukasi(-i) na
Taroo-TOP difficult(-Pres.) don’t‘Taroo, don’t be difficult’It appears then that na selects for a specific subcategory, verbal present tense. But thisrequirement is plausibly s-selection rather than categorial selection (c-selection).
It is well known that verbal present tense ru is more precisely characterized as indicating
non-past. Thus, it occurs also in future contexts as in (15).
wani-otabe-ru(15) a. Hanako-wa asita
Hanako-NOM tomorrow alligator-ACC eat-Pres.
‘Hanako is going to eat alligator meat tomorrow’b. Taroo-wa rainen
soko-ni ik-u
Taroo-TOP next.year there-to go-Pres.
‘Taroo is going there next year’
This extension to future contexts, as far as I know, is not observed with the adjectival present
i. (16a-b) are ungrammatical.
(16) a. *Taroo-wa asita
kimuzukasi-i
Taroo-TOP tomorrow difficult-Pres.
‘Taroo will be difficult tomorrow’-392- 392 -Conditions on Japanese Phrase Structure (M. Saito)

kanasi-i
b. *Watasi-wa asita
I-NOM
tomorrow sad-Pres.
‘I will feel sad tomorrow’
Then, it can be hypothesized that na s-selects future tense.
The distribution of mai (negative volition, negative surmise) is similar. The following
examples indicate that it s-selects future tense just like na.
(17) a. Watasi-wa sore-o tabe-ru mai
I-TOP
it-ACC eat-Pres. won’t‘I will not eat it’maib. Watasi-wa soko-ni ik-u
I-TOP
there-to go-Pres. won’t‘I will not go there’
c. *Watasi-wa sore-o tabe-ta mai
I-TOP
it-ACC eat-Past won’t
d. *Watasi-wa kanasi(-i) mai
sad-Pres. won’t
I-TOP‘I will not feel sad’
But there is another pattern observed with mai, as in (18).
(18) Watasi-wa sore-o tabe-mai
I-TOP
it-ACC eat-won’t‘I guess Taroo won’t eat it’
In this example, mai is suffixed to the verbal stem tabe. Curiously, mai cannot be suffixed toa verb stem that ends in a consonant. Thus, an example parallel to (18) cannot be formed with(17b). Here, I tentatively propose that the verbal suffix is not mai but (u)mai. Then, theexample with this suffix that corresponds to (17b) is homophonous with (17b) as in (19).4(19) Watasi-wa soko-ni ik-umai
there-to go-won’t
I-TOP‘I will not go there’
This concludes the discussion of all modals listed in (4). It was shown that most of them
4

The suffix is umai uniformly. When it is merged with tabe as in (18), the initial u is deleted
according to the morphophonological rule suggested in Footnote 2.

-393- 393 -

2008

2012







are verbal suffixes and hence, must take vP complements so that morphology can interpretthem. Daroo (surmise) and desyoo (formal surmise) s-select T and must take TP
complements. A similar pattern is observed with na (negative imperative) and mai (negative
volition, negative surmise), which s-select T with future tense. It follows then that no modal
can take a ModalP as a complement.5 This accounts for the uniqueness condition on modals.
Ueda (2007) groups the elements in (4) under the category Modal in part because they are incomplementary disctribution. But given the analysis suggested here, it is no longer clear thatthey form a natural class. As shown in the subsequent sections, the complementizer no andthe discourse particle wa s-select T, and hence, are in complementary distribution with theelements in (4). This, however, does not show that they belong to the category Modal. This
state of affairs is expected under the bare phrase structure theory where there are no “fixed
positions” for categories and Merge applies freely to two syntactic objects. It is simply thatthe formed structure must meet the requirements of morphology and s-selection, and thisforces some elements to be in complementary distribution.

3. The Transitivity Harmonony Phenomenon in Lexical Complex Verbs
This section concerns Kageyama’s (1993) generalization in (20) on Japanese lexical
complex verbs.
(20) The transitivity harmony principle
In a complex verb V1+V2, V1 and V2 must be consistent with respect to the presence/
absence of an external -role.
This generalization states that if one of the component verbs is unaccusative, the other one
must also be unaccusative. Thus, it distinguishes the transitive-transitive combination in (21a)and the unaccusative-transitive combination in (21b).
Taroo-oosi-taosi-ta(21) a. Hanako-ga
Hanako-NOM Taroo-ACC push-make.fall-Past‘Hanako pushed Taroo and made him fall’b. *Taroo-ga
kuzira-oukabi-mi-ta
Taroo-NOM whale-ACC float-see-Past‘A whale came to the surface and Taroo saw it’
Kageyama shows that there are three kinds of complex verbs in Japanese, aside from thosethat are idiosyncratically formed and pattern with simple verbs, and demonstrates that (20)applies to one of them, which he calls lexical complex verbs. I first briefly go over thisqualification, and then, argue that (20) is to be explained by the s-selection requirements of5

Two modals can appear, although not adjacently, in a structure like V-v-(T)-Modal-(X)-V-v-(T)Modal. But the two modals belong to different clauses in this structure.

-394- 394 -Conditions on Japanese Phrase Structure (M. Saito)

v*/v.
Kageyama (1993) first distinguishes between syntactic and lexical complex verbs. In theformer, V1 and V2 project separate VPs, and V2 takes the VP headed by V1 (or thecorresponding vP) as its complement. Typical examples are shown in (22), and the structureof (22a) is as in (23).6
Taroo-niwani-otabe-sase-ta(22) a. Hanako-ga
Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT alligator-ACC eat-make-Past‘Hanako made Taroo eat alligator meat’b. Taroo-ga
wani-otabe-hazime-ta
Taroo-NOM alligator-ACC eat-start-Past‘Taroo started to eat alligator meat’(23)

TP
Hanako-ga

T’vP      t      



ta
v’

VP

Taroo-niv
V’vP       ttabe+sasev’

VP
wani-ovtV

According to Kageyama, the complex verb tabe-sase is formed by the incorporation of tabe
into sase.
One piece of evidence Kageyama provides for his analysis is that the pro-VP (or V’)form soo su ‘do so’ can substitute for the VP (or V’) headed by V1. Thus, the following
examples are grammatical:

6(23) differs from the structure Kageyama posits in the details, but the crucial point is that tabe ‘eat’and sase ‘cause’ both project VPs. It has been widely assumed since Kuroda (1965) that sase takes aclausal complement of some kind. The best known evidence is that in a causative sentence, the causer
and the causee both qualify as the antecedent of the subject-oriented long-distance reflexive zibun.
Here, I follow Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004), and assume that sase takes a vP complement.

-395- 395 -

2008

2012









Taroo-nisoo s-ase-ta(24) a. Hanako-ga
Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT so do-make-Past‘Hanako made Taroo do so’
b. Taroo-ga
soo si-hazime-ta
Taroo-NOM so do-start-Past‘Taroo started to do so’
Lexical complex verbs, on the other hand, are formed in the lexicon and project a single
VP, according to Kageyama. Examples are provided in (25).
ana-ni suberi-oti-ta(25) a. Taroo-ga
Taroo-NOM hole-in slip-fall-Past‘Taroo slipped and fell into a hole’me-onaki-harasi-ta
b. Hanako-ga
Hanako-NOM eye-Acc cry-make.swollen-Past‘Hanako cried and made her eyelids swollen’Although the complex verbs in (22) and (25) look similar on the surface, they patterndifferently with soo su substitution. As shown in (26), soo su cannot substutute for V1 or its
projection in the case of (25).
(ana-ni) soo si-oti-ta(26) a. *Taroo-ga
Taroo-NOM hole-in so do-fall-Past
b. *Hanako-ga(me-o)
soo si-harasi-ta
Hanako-NOM eye-ACC so do-make.swallen-Past
This is expected if the complex verb is formed in the lexicon and V1 does not project an
independent VP.
Kageyama (1993) shows that lexical complex verbs are subject to the transitivity
harmony principle in (20). (27) lists some examples.
(27) a. transitive-transitive: hiki-nuk ‘pull-pull.out’, nigiri-tubus ‘grasp-crash’,tataki-otos ‘knock-drop’, kiri-tor ‘cut-remove’, uke-tome ‘receive-catch’b. unergative-unergative: hasiri-yor (run-go.close.to), tobi-ori (jump-go.down),
kake-nobor (run-climb), aruki-mawar (walk-go.around), mure-tob (form.a.flock-fly)c. unaccusative-unaccusative: suberi-oti (slip-fall), ukabi-agar (float-rise),umare-kawar (be.born-change), huri-sosog (fall-flow)-396- 396 -Conditions on Japanese Phrase Structure (M. Saito)

d. transitive-unergative: moti-aruk (carry-walk), sagasi-mawar (look.for-go.around),mati-kamae (wait-hold)e. unergative-transitive: naki-haras (cry-make.swollen), nori-kae (ride-change),nomi-tubus (drink-waste), odori-akas (dance-stay.up.all.night)
Ungrammatical examples that do not conform to (20) are shown in (28)-(31).
(28) a. *Taroo-ga
kuzira-oukabi-mi-ta (unaccusative+transitive)
Taroo-NOM whale-ACC float-see-Past‘A whale came to the surface and Taroo saw it’
oti-kakusi-ta
b. *Kareha-ga
zimen-odead.leaf-NOM ground-ACC fall-hide-Past‘Dead leaves fell and covered the ground’
Taroo-oosi-taore-ta (transitive+unaccusative)(29) a. *Hanako-ga
Hanako-NOM Taroo-ACC push-fall-Past‘Hanako pushed Taroo and Taroo fell’nomi-yot-ta
b. *Hanako-ga
wain-oHanako-NOM wine-ACC drink-get.drunk-Past‘Hanako drank wine and got drunk’(30) a. *Kodomo-ga kaika-ni
asobi-oti-ta (unergative+unaccusative)
child-NOM downstairs-to play-fall-Past‘A child played and fell downstairs’
undoozyoo-de hasiri-koron-dab. *Hanako-ga
Hanako-NOM field-in
run-tumble-Past‘Hanako ran and tumbled in the field’
oti-ori-ta (unaccusative+unergative)(31) a. *Taroo-ga
kaika-niTaroo-NOM downstairs-to fall-go.down-Past‘Taroo fell and went downstairs’
b. *Kodomo-ga karyuu-ni
nagare-oyoi-dachild-NOM downstream-to be.carried-swim-Past‘A child was carried and swam downstream’
The transitivity harmony phenomenon, just illustrated, poses an interesting question. (20)-397- 397 -

2008

2012









clearly is not a plausible candidate for a universal, innate principle on word formation. In fact,as Kageyama notes, it is not universally observed with lexical complex verbs. For example,
Chinese compound verbs do not exhibit the phenomenon. The following examples are from
Huang (1982):7(32) a. Ta he-zui(jiu) lehe drink-get.drunk wine Asp.
‘He drank (wine) and got drunk’
lianpi ma
b. Ta qi-lei-lehe ride-tired-Asp. two horse‘He rode two horses and got them tired’At the same time, it is hard to imagine that Japanese speakers acquire (20) as a languagespecific constraint through experience. Then, (20) is expected to be a consequence of aproperty of Japanese lexical complex verbs. But before going into this, let me briefly go overKageyama’s analysis of those complex verbs and also illustrate his third kind of complex
verbs.
Kageyama proposes that Japanese lexical complex verbs are formed through -role
identification. His analysis of osi-taos ‘push-make.fall’ in (21a) is shown in (33).
(33)

osi-taos(agent2 <theme2>)
inheritanceos(agent1 <theme1>)

taos(agent2 <theme2>)             

identification

The two component verbs, os and taos, have their own -roles. The agent roles of the two
verbs are identified, and so are their theme roles. After this -role identification, the complex
verb inherits the argument structure of the head, taos. Given this mechanism, the transitivity
harmony principle can be construed as a constraint on -role identification: if a component
verb has an external -role, it must be identified with the external -role of the other verb.
There is another kind of lexical complex verbs, according to Kageyama, that are formed
through a different process. Typical examples are shown in (34).
(34) a. Hanako-ga
Taroo-oheya-ni oi-kon-da (transitive+kom)
Hanako-NOM Taroo-ACC room-in chase-KOM-Past‘Taroo was chased by Hanako into the room’7

See Li (1993) for a detailed comparison of Chinese and Japanese complex verbs.

-398- 398 -Conditions on Japanese Phrase Structure (M. Saito)

kawa-ni tobi-kon-da (unergative+kom)b. Taroo-ga
Taroo-NOM river-to jump-KOM-Past‘Taroo jumped into the river’c. Osensui-ga
umi-ni nagare-kon-da (unaccusative+kom)contaminated.water-NOM ocean-to flow-KOM-Past‘Contaminated water flowed into the ocean’These examples show that the verbal suffix kom can combine with any kind of verb. It
appears then that complex verbs of the form V+kom are not subject to transitivity harmony.
However, the issue does not arise in this case because kom, at least with its meaning in (34),
is not an independent verb with its own -roles.8 Kom can be suffixed to the verb when thesentence indicates that a person or an object moves, and it adds the meaning that the person or
the object moves to the location specified in the sentence. Kageyama, then, concludes thatkom adds to the lexical-conceptual structure of the verb it is suffixed to. The complex verbs
that are formed in this way are lexical complex verbs, but I refer to them as LCS complex
verbs in order to distinguish them from those that are subject to transitivity harmony.
With this background, let me now consider the source of the transitivity harmony
phenomenon. As noted above, the phenomenon is expected to follow as a consequence of aproperty of Japanese lexical complex verbs. The relevant property does not seem to besemantic. For example, there does not seem to be anything semantically wrong if lexical
complex predicates are formed in ways inconsistent with transitivity harmony. The illicit
ukabi-mi ‘surface-see’ and oti-kakus ‘fall-hide’ in (28) can be straightforwardly formed as in(35) under Kageyama’s analysis.
(35) a.

ukabi-mi(agent2 <theme2>)
ukab(<theme1>)b.

inheritancemi(agent2 <theme2>)
identification

oti-kakus(agent2 <theme2>)
inheritanceoti(<theme1>)

kakus(agent2 <theme2>)
identification

The relevant property cannot be morphological, either. Lexical complex verbs are notmorphologically different from syntactic complex verbs or LCS complex verbs. Then,
8

There is an independent verb kom, which means ‘become crowded’.

-399- 399 -

2008

2012







transitivity harmony is likely to be a reflection of a syntactic property of lexical complex
verbs.
Kageyama’s analysis illustrated in (33) suggests a curious property of those complex
verbs. Because of -role identification, the argument structures of V1 and V2 are bothprojected in the syntax. Let us consider again (21a), repeated below as (36).
Taroo-oosi-taosi-ta(36) Hanako-ga
Hanako-NOM Taroo-ACC push-make.fall-Past‘Hanako pushed Taroo and made him fall’
In this example, Hanako is the agent of os as well as taos, and Taroo serves as the theme forboth verbs. Further, Kageyama makes an important observation that the arguments of alexical complex verb must satisfy the selectional requirements of both V1 and V2. His
relevant examples are shown in (37)-(38) with slight modifications.
(37) a. Tuta-ga boo-ni maki-tui-ta
ivy-NOM stick-to wind-attach-Past‘An ivy twined around the stick’
b. Abura-ga kabe-ni simi-tui-ta
oil-NOM wall-to soak-attach-Past‘The wall was stained with oil’(38) a. *Tuta-ga boo-ni simi-tui-ta
ivy-NOM stick-to soak-attach-Past‘The stick was stained with an ivy’
b. *Abura-ga kabe-ni maki-tui-ta
oil-NOM wall-to wind-attach-Past‘The oil twined around the wall’(38a) is ungrammatical because an ivy cannot soak into a stick, and (38b) because oil cannot
twine around a wall. These examples demonstrate that both V1 and V2 enter into selectional
relations with the arguments.
If V1 and V2 are both visible in the selectional relations with the arguments, they mustalso participate in the selectional relations with v*/v, as illustrated in (39) for (36).
(39) a. [VP Taroo [V [V osi]-[V taos]]]-400- 400 -Conditions on Japanese Phrase Structure (M. Saito)

b. [v’ [VP Taroo [V [V osi]-[V taos]]] v*]

It has been widely assumed since Chomsky (1995b) that v* s-selects transitive/unergative V
while v s-selects unaccusative V. The selectional requirement of v* is satisfied in (39b) as
both os ‘push’ and taos ‘make.fall’ are transitive. But note that a lexical complex verb canmeet the selectional requirements of v*/v when and only when the complex verb obeys thetransitivity harmony principle in (20). Since each member of the complex verb enters into
selectional relations with v*/v, v* requires that both members be transitive or unergative and v
demands that both be unaccusative. Hence, the transitivity harmony follows from the sselection requirements of v*/v.
In this section, I argued that a characteristic property of Japanese lexical complex verbs isthat each component verb participates in selectional relations, and given this, Kageyama’s(1993) transitivity harmony phenomenon follows from the s-selection requirements of v*/v.9
In the following two sections, I discuss cases where semantic and speech act compatibility
contributes to the well-formedness of sentences.
4. The Hierarchy of Japanese Complementizers
Japanese has three complementizers, no, ka and to, as illustrated in (40).
soko-ni i-runo]-osittei-ta(40) a. Taroo-wa [CP Hanako-ga
Taroo-TOP
Hanako-NOM there-in be-Pres. no-ACC know-Past‘Taroo knew that Hanako was there’sono hon-omottei-ru ka] siritagattei-ru
b. Taroo-wa [CP Hanako-ga
Taroo-TOP Hanako-NOM that book-ACC have-Pres. ka want.to.know-Pres.
‘Taroo wants to know whether Hanako has that book’sono hon-omottei-ru to] omottei-ruc. Taroo-wa [CP Hanako-ga
Taroo-TOP Hanako-NOM that book-ACC have-Pres. to think-Pres.
‘Taroo thinks that Hanako has that book’
These complementizers can co-occur as in (41), and when they do, they appear in the orderindicated.

9

The next question to be addressed is why Japanese productively employs complex verbs with thisproperty. See Saito (to appear) for some discussion on this.

-401- 401 -

2008

2012





(no) ka (to)] minna-ni tazune-ta(41) Taroo-wa [CP kare-no imooto-ga soko-ni i-ta
Taroo-TOP he-GEN sister-NOM there-at be-Past no ka to all-DAT inquire-Past‘Taroo asked everyone if his sister was there’
Given this, I proposed the hierarchy in (42) in Saito (2012).
(42) [CP … [CP … [CP … Finite (no)] Force (ka)] Report (to)](42) predicts that the complementizer sequences in (43a) are allowed while those in (43b)are not.
(43) a. no-ka, ka-to, no-ka-tob. *to-ka, ka-no, to-no, to-ka-no, ka-to-noc. *no-to
There is, however, one sequence, no-to in (43c), that is consistent with the hierarchy in (42)and yet is illicit. Thus, (44) is ungrammatical.
no to] kitaisi-ta(44) *Taroo-wa [CP kare-no imooto-ga soko-ni i-ru
Taroo-TOP
he-GEN sister-NOM there-at be-Pres. no to expect-Past‘Taroo expected his sister to be there’
The purpose of this section is to provide an explanation for the hierarchy in (42), and at thesame time, to account for the exception in (43c).
It is necessary to discuss the properties of each complementizer first in order to examine
the source of their hierarchical relations. Ka is straightforward as it is the complementizer forquestions. No and to, on the other hand, require some discussion. Let’s consider to first.
To is ambiguous between a marker of direct quotation as in (45a) and a complementizer
that embeds indirect discourse as in (45b).
/omot-ta (koto)(45) a. Hanako-ga, “Watasi-wa tensai da,” to it-ta
Hanako-NOM I-TOP
genius be to say-Past/think-Past fact‘(the fact that) Hanako said/thought, “I’m a genius”’[zibun-ga tensai da to] it-ta/omot-ta (koto)b. Hanako-ga
Hanako-NOM self-NOM genius be to say-Past/think-Past fact‘(the fact that) Hanako said/thought that she is a genius’
In the latter case, it has been widely assumed that to is employed for propositional
complements as it appears when the matrix verb is a typical bridge verb like iw ‘say’ and-402- 402 -Conditions on Japanese Phrase Structure (M. Saito)

omow ‘think’. However, I argued in Saito (2012) that to embeds a paraphrase or report of
direct discourse. Plann (1982) shows that the Spanish complementizer que has this function.
What I proposed is that to is specialized for this function. One piece of evidence is that thematrix verbs that s-select to are all verbs of saying and thinking, that is, verbs that arecompatible with direct quotation. A partial list of those verbs is shown in (46).
(46) omo-u ‘think’, kangae-ru ‘consider’, sinzi-ru ‘believe’, i-u ‘say’, sakeb-u ‘scream’,syutyoosu-ru ‘claim, insist’, tazune-ru ‘inquire’, kitaisu-ru ‘expect, hope’,kakuninsu-ru ‘confirm’, kanzi-ru ‘feel’ (all in present tense)
Secondly, to embeds various types of sentences just like que. To follows a question in(47a), imperative sentences in (47b-c), and an expression of invitation in (47d).10
ku-ru
ka to] tazune-ta(47) a. Taroo-wa Ziroo-ni [CP kanozyo-ga kare-no ie-ni
Taroo-TOP Ziroo-DAT she-NOM he-GEN house-to come-Pres. ka to ask-Past‘Taroo asked Ziroo if she is coming to his house’
i-roto] meizi-ta
b. Hanako-wa Taroo-ni[CP kanozyo-no ie-ni
Hanako-TOP Taroo-DAT
she-GEN house-at be-Imp. to order-Past‘Hanako ordered Taroo to be at her house’
ik-u-nato] meizi-ta
c. Hanako-wa Taroo-ni[CP kanozyo-no ie-ni
Hanako-TOP Taroo-DAT
she-GEN house-to go-Pres.-don’t to order-Past‘Hanako ordered Taroo not to go to her house’
ik-oo to] sasot-ta
d. Hanako-wa Taroo-o[CP kanozyo-no ie-ni
Hanako-TOP Taroo-ACC
she-GEN house-to go-let’s to invite-Past‘Hanako invited Taroo to go to her house’
This is unexpected if to is a complementizer for propositional complements. On the other
hand, the examples in (47) should be grammatical if to embeds paraphrases of direct
discourse. A direct discourse, and hence its paraphrase, can be a question, an order or aninvitation, in addition to a simple statement.
Then, what is the complementizer for embedded propositions in Japanese? It is argued in
Saito (2012) that no is employed for this purpose. (48) is a partial list of matrix verbs thattake CP complements headed by no.

10

Plann (1982) demonstrates that que can take a question CP as a complement when the matrix verb
is a verb of saying or thinking. She argues, based on this fact, that que can embed a paraphrase of aquotation. Rivero (1994) shows in support of Plann’s analysis that que takes an imperativecomplement as well.

-403- 403 -

2008

2012





(48) wasure-ru ‘forget’, kookaisu-ru ‘regret’, mi-ru ‘see’, mat-u ‘wait’, tamera-u ‘hesitate’,kyohisu-ru ‘refuse’, ukeire-ru ‘accept’, kitaisu-ru ‘expect, hope’, kakuninsu-ru‘confirm’, kanzi-ru ‘feel’ (all in present tense)
All of these verbs take complements that express events or actions. For example, what one
forgets is an event or to perform an action. What one hesitates is to perform an action andwhat one waits for is for an event to happen. Then, they take propositional complements.
Matsumoto (2010) argues that no is a Finite head, a hypothesis originally proposed byHiraiwa and Ishihara (2002). If no is the complementizer for propositions, it should in
principle be able to embed a ModalP, as a ModalP can stand for a proposition. However,Matsumoto observes that no s-selects T and is incompatible with modals. This is shown in(49)-(50).
hur-u] no]-okitaisi-ta(49) a. Taroo-wa [CP [TP ame-ga
Taroo-TOP
rain -NOM fall-Pres. no-ACC expect-Past‘Taroo hoped that it would rain’
hur-u
daroo] no]-okitaisi-ta
b. *Taroo-wa [CP [ModalP ame-ga
Taroo-TOP
rain-NOM fall-Pres. will no-ACC expect-Past‘Taroo hoped that it would rain’
hur-u] no]-oyosoosi-ta(52) a. Taroo-wa [CP [TP ame-ga
Taroo-TOP
rain-NOM fall-Pres. no-ACC predict-Past‘Taroo predicted that it would rain’
hur-umai] no]-oyosoosi-ta
b. *Taroo-wa [CP [ModalP ame-ga
Taroo-TOP
rain-NOM fall-Pres. won’t no-ACC predict-Past‘Taroo predicted that it would not rain’
Finite, by definition, is closely related to Tense. Then, the fact that no s-selects T, Matsumoto(2010) argues, provides evidence that it is a Finite head.
Let us now consider the hierarchy in (42), repeated in (53), with this background.
(53) [CP … [CP … [CP … Finite (no)] Force (ka)] Report (to)]The fact that no occupies the lowest position in the hierarchy already follows from its sselection requirement. As it s-selects T, it cannot take a CP complement. On the other hand,ka and to are not in selectional relation with any specific head. Ka, for example, merges witha syntactic object that stands for a proposition and creates a question. A proposition can be
expressed as a vP, a TP, a ModalP or a CP. Ka can take a TP, a ModalP and a CP as its
complement, as shown in (54).

-404- 404 -Conditions on Japanese Phrase Structure (M. Saito)

soko-ni it-ta] ka] minna-ni tazune-ta(54) a. Taroo-wa [CP [TP Hanako-ga
Taroo-TOP[CP [TP Hanako-NOM there-to go-Past ka all-DAT ask-Past‘Taroo asked everyone if Hanako went there’soko-ni ik-u
daroo] ka] minna-ni tazune-ta
b. Taroo-wa [CP [ModalP Hanako-ga
Taroo-TOP
Hanako-NOM there-to go-Pres. will ka all-DAT ask-Past‘Taroo asked everyone if Hanako would go there’
c. Taroo-wa [CP [CP Hanako-ga
soko-ni it-tano] ka] minna-ni tazune-ta
Taroo-TOP
Hanako-NOM there-to go-Past no ka all-DAT ask-Past‘Taroo asked everyone if Hanako went there’(54c) is the most relevant for the hierarchy in (53), which allows the no-ka sequence. As
argued above, no is the complementizer for embedded propositions and a CP headed by nostands for a proposition. Hence, ka can merge with a no-headed CP as in (54c).
The merger of vP and ka should be possible on semantic grounds but is excluded bymorphology. A verb stem is a dependent morpheme and requires a suffix such as tense. As ka
cannot serve as an appropriate suffix for a verb stem, it cannot take a vP complement. Also,ka cannot combine with ModalPs and CPs that do not stand for propositions. Thus, thefollowing examples are totally ungrammatical:(55) a. *Taroo-wa [CP [ModalP Hanako-ga
soko-ni ik-e]ka] minna-ni tazune-ta
Taroo-TOP
Hanako-NOM there-to go-Imp. ka all-DAT ask-Past
soko-ni it-ta
to] ka] minna-ni tazune-ta
b. *Taroo-wa [CP [CP Hanako-ga
Taroo-TOP
Hanako-NOM there-to go-Past to ka all-DAT ask-Past
The embedded ModalP in (55a) expresses an order, and that in (55b) a paraphrase of direct
discourse. These are examples of semantic incompatibility as ka requires a complement thatstands for a proposition. (55b), in particular, illustrates why the complementizer sequence toka is impossible.
It was shown so far why no-ka is possible wheras ka-no and to-ka are not. It is necessary
to review the property of to in order to examine the other combinations. It was argued abovethat to embeds a paraphrase of direct discourse. This complementizer, like ka, does not sselect any specific head, and can combine with various types of clauses as long as its
semantic requirement is satisfied. It was already shown in (40c) and (47) that ka can take a
TP, a CP and a ModalP as its complement. Most relevant in the present context is (47a),
repeated below as (56).

-405- 405 -

2008

2012









ku-ru
ka] to] tazune-ta(56) Taroo-wa Ziroo-ni [CP [CP kanozyo-ga kare-no ie-ni
Taroo-TOP Ziroo-DAT
she-NOM he-GEN house-to come-Pres. ka to ask-Past‘Taroo asked Ziroo if she is coming to his house’
As the paraphrased direct discourse can be a question, to can take a question CP as its
complement. A direct discourse, or an utterance, can express a statement, an assertion, aquestion, an order, and the like. It is then not surprising that to can embed various types ofclauses. Outstanding in this context is the ungrammaticality of (44), repeated below as (57).
no to] kitaisi-ta(57) *Taroo-wa [CP kare-no imooto-ga soko-ni i-ru
Taroo-TOP he-GEN sister-NOM there-at be-Pres. no to expect-Past‘Taroo expected his sister to be there’
This example indicates that to cannot take a no-headed CP as its complement. Recall here that
no-headed CPs stand for propositions, and express events, states, actions and the like. Then,they cannot be construed as paraphrases of direct discourse. The no-to sequence is illicit also
because of semantic incompatibility.
In this section, I argued that the hierarchical relation among the complementizers, no, ka
and to, follows from the s-selection requirement of no and the semantics of thesecomplementizers. No, which is the complementizer for embedded propositions, s-selects T.
Hence, it occupies the lowest position in the hierarchy. Ka merges with clauses that stand for
propositions and creates questions. Hence, the no-ka sequence is possible. To embeds
paraphrases of direct discourse. Since the paraphrased direct discourse can be a question, theka-to sequence is also possible. This covers all the possible combinations, no-ka, ka-to, andno-ka-to. On the other hand, the ka-no and to-no sequences are both in conflict with the sselection requirement of no. The to-ka sequence is ruled out because a to-headed CP does notstand for a proposition. Thus, the hierarchy in (53) is precisely what is expected. The only
exception to the hierarchy is that the no-to sequence is illicit. This fact too receives anaccount because a no-headed CP cannot express a paraphrase of direct discourse. In thefollowing section, I turn to the distributions of sentence-final discourse particles, anotherphenomenon for which a hierarchy is proposed.
5. Discourse Particles and Speech Act Compatibility
Japanese is rich in sentence-final particles. Endo (2010) discusses four of them in somedetail; wa, yo, ne and na. Roughly speaking, the first two are employed for assertion, and thelatter two for solicitation of response. As Endo observes, their distributions are quite
interesting because some of them can co-occur but only in a fixed order. For example, (58)contains three particles, and they must appear in the order indicated.

-406- 406 -Conditions on Japanese Phrase Structure (M. Saito)(58) Hanako-wa soko-ni i-ta(wa) (yo) (ne)Hanako-TOP there-at be-Past wa yo ne‘Hanako was there’
In this section, I investigate the source of this hierarchy.11
First, as Haraguchi (2012) shows, these particles are genuine discourse elements whose
distribitions are confined to matrix contexts. Thus, they cannot occur even within to-headed
CPs, which embed various types of clauses as observed above.
i-ru(*wa) to] omot-ta(59) a. Hanako-wa [CP Taroo-wa kanozyo-no ie-ni
Hanako-TOP Taroo-TOP she-GEN house-at be-Pres. wa to think-Past‘Hanako thought that Taroo is at her house’b. Hanako-wa [CP Taroo-ga kanozyo-o tasukete kure-ru (*yo) to] kitaisi-ta
Hanako-TOP Taroo-TOP she-ACC help (for her)-Pres. yo to expect-Past‘Hanako expected Taroo to help her’
Nevertheless, wa, in particular, has an s-selection requirement. It takes a TP complement asshown in (60).12
wa / it-ta
wa(61) a. Watasi-wa soko-ni ik-u
I-TOP
there-to go-Pres. wa go-Past wa‘I will go there / I went there’
b. Taroo-wa yasasi-i wa / yasasi-katta wa
Taroo-TOP kind-Pres. wa kind-Past
wa‘Taroo is kind / Taroo was kind’
Wa follows verbal tenses (ru/ta) in (61a) and adjectival tenses (i/katta) in (61b).
On the other hand, wa cannot merge with a CP or a ModalP. (62a) shows that wa is
incompatible with a CP complement, and (62b-c) that it cannot take a ModalP as its
complement.
(62) a. Taroo-wa soko-ni ik-uno (*wa)
Taroo-TOP there-to go-Pres. no wa‘Taroo will go there’
11

The content of this section is based on joint research with Tomoko Haraguchi and is reported in
more detail in Saito and Haraguchi (2012).
12

Wa is typically employed in women’s speech.

-407- 407 -

2008

2012









b. Taroo-wa soko-ni ik-e(*wa)
Taroo-TOP there-to go-Imp. wa‘Taroo, go there’
desyoo (*wa)
c. Hanako-wa ku-ru
Hanako-TOP come-Pres. will
wa
‘Hanako will come’Then, wa s-selects T. This predicts that wa must occupy the lowest position in a sequence of
discourse particles. It indeed cannot follow any discourse particle, as shown in (63).
yo (*wa)(63) a. Hanako-wa soko-ni i-ta
Hanako-TOP there-at be-Past yo wa‘Hanako was there’
b. Hanako-wa soko-ni i-ta
ne (*wa)
Hanako-TOP there-at be-Past ne wa‘Hanako was there, wasn’t she?’
Although yo is also employed for assertion, it exhibits a different distribution. It allows
various clause types as its complement, and as Tenny (2006) notes, it can be translatedroughly as ‘I’m telling you …’ It takes TP complements in (64) and ModalP complements in(65).
(64) a. Taroo-wa soko-ni i-ru
yo / i-ta
yoTaroo-TOP there-at be-Pres. yo be-Past yo‘Taroo is there / was there’
b. Taroo-wa yasasi-i yo / yasasi-katta yo
Taroo-TOP kind-Pres. yo kind-Past yo‘Taroo is kind / was kind’(65) a. Taroo-wa soko-ni ik-e / ik-inasai yo
Taroo-TOP there-to go-Imp. go-Imp. yo‘Taroo, go there’
b. Soko-ni ik-oo / ik-imasyoo yoyothere-to go-Inv. go-Inv.
‘Let’s go there’
The examples in (66) show that yo can follow the complentizer no and the discourse particlewa.

-408- 408 -Conditions on Japanese Phrase Structure (M. Saito)(66) a. Hanako-wa soko-ni i-ru
no yo
Hanako-TOP there-at be-Pres. no yo‘Hanako is there’
wa yo
b. Hanako-wa soko-ni i-ru
Hanako-TOP there-at be-Pres. wa yo‘Hanako is there’
Yo clearly does not have any s-selection requirement, and given this, it is not surprising that it
can follow another discourse particle.
Na and ne, which solicit response, are similar to yo in distribution. Here, I provide someexamples for ne.
(67) a. Taroo-wa yasasi-i ne
Taroo-TOP kind-Pres. ne‘Taroo is kind, isn’t he?’b. Taroo-wa soko-ni ik-inasai ne
Taroo-wa there-to go-Imp. ne‘Taroo, go there. Will you?’c. Soko-ni ik-imasyoo nenethere-to go-let’s‘Let’s go there. Shall we?’d. Taroo-wa yasasi-i no ne
Taroo-TOP kind-Pres. no ne‘Taroo is kind, isn’t he?’e. Taroo-wa yasasi-i wa ne
Taroo-TOP kind-Pres. wa ne‘Taroo is kind, isn’t he?’What appears in the complement position of ne is a TP in (67a), a ModalP in (67b-c), a CP in(67d), and a sentence headed by the speech act particle wa in (67e). Thus, ne does not s-selecta specific head, either.
As Keiko Murasugi observes, there is clear evidence that wa and the other discourse
particles differ in selectional properties. Yo, ne and na can appear not only sentence-finally
but after any major constituent. (68) illustrates this with ne.

-409- 409 -

2008

2012







ne soko-ni ne i-te
ne …
(68) Taroo-ga
Taroo-NOM ne there-at ne be-and ne‘It’s Taroo, alright? It’s there, alright? He was there, alright? And, …’This is consistent with the proposal that ne does not s-select any head. Wa, on the other hand,cannot be used in this way as it s-selects T.
Nevertheless, there are restrictions on the complements of yo, ne and na. For example, ne
and na can follow yo, but yo cannot follow them. Further, ne and na are mutually exclusive.
Relevant examples are shown in (69)-(70).
yo ne/na(69) a. Hanako-wa
soko-ni i-ta
Hanako-NOM there-at be-Past yo ne/na
Hanako was there, wasn’t she?’ne/na yob. *Hanako-wa
soko-ni i-ta
Hanako-NOM there-at be-Past ne/na yo
ne na(70) a. *Hanako-wa
soko-ni i-ta
Hanako-NOM there-at be-Past ne na
Hanako was there, wasn’t she?’na neb. *Hanako-wa
soko-ni i-ta
Hanako-NOM there-at be-Past na ne
Hanako was there, wasn’t she?’Then, descriptively, the hierarchy in (71) obtains.
(71) [[[ TP wa] yo] ne/na]
As argued above, wa must occupy the lowest position because it s-selects T. I suggest that therest should be accounted for in terms of the speech acts these particles yield.
First, yo is employed for assertion, and hence, its complement must be capable ofexpressing an assertion. The following examples demonstrate this.
soko-ni ik-uka] yo(72) a. [CP Dare-ga
who-NOM there-to go-Pres. ka yo‘Who will go there? = No one will go there’
nani-gadeki-ruka] yob. [CP Taroo-ni
Taroo-DAT what-NOM can.do-Pres. ka yo‘What can Taroo do? = Taroo can’t do anything’-410- 410 -Conditions on Japanese Phrase Structure (M. Saito)

A question can be interpreted at the discourse level as a literal question or as a rhetoricalquestion. However, when a question is embedded under yo as in (70), only the rhetoricalquestion interpretation survives. This is expected because a rhetorical question expresses anassertion while a literal question does not. The situation is different with ne and na, whichsolicit response. (73a-b), unlike (72a-b), retain the ambiguity.
soko-ni ik-uka] ne(73) a. [CP Dare-ga
who-NOM there-to go-Pres. ka ne‘Who will go there? / (I think) No one will go there. What do you think?’
nani-gadeki-ruka] neb. [CP Taroo-ni
Taroo-DAT what-NOM can.do-Pres. ka ne‘What can Taroo do? / (I think) Taroo can’t do anything. What do you think?’
This should be because a response can be solicited on a question or an assertion.
Given the observation above, it is not at all surprising that the yo-ne/na sequence isallowed while the ne/na-yo sequence is not. Yo combines with an expression of assertion andreinforces the speech act. It is then possible to solicit a response on the assertion by placingne/na after yo. On the other hand, ne/na adds the speech act of soliciting a response. A
sentence with these particles is in fact best translated as a tag question. But it was seen abovethat the complement of yo cannot express a literal question for the simple reason that aquestion cannot be asserted. Thus, the hierarchical relation between yo and ne/na is predictedfrom their discourse roles.
The final question to be addressed is why ne and na cannot co-occur, as was shown in(70). Although I do not have a clear-cut answer for this, I would like to make a suggestion,
based on an observation in Endo (2010). Endo notes that na is appropriate when talking toonself whereas ne is not. Let’s compare the following two examples:(74) a. Dekake-ta na
go.out-Past na‘It looks like she/he went out’
b. Dekake-ta ne
go.out-Past ne‘You/she/he went out, didn’t you/he/she?’Suppose that you go home alone and find that your roommate is not there. Then, you could
utter (74a), talking to yourself. (74b) is inappropriate in this context. On the other hand,
suppose that you go home with your friend. Then, you could say (74b) to your friend,
referring to your roommate. Or (74b) can be addressed to your roommate when she/he comeshome. This suggests that na solicits a response from the discourse participants including the-411- 411 -

2008

2012









speaker, while ne seeks a response from those excluding the speaker. Na can be employedwhen talking to oneself, as there is a discourse participant to whom the utterance can beaddressed, namely, the speaker. Ne has no function in this context. If this characterization ofne and na is correct, then they should be mutually exclusive because their discourse functions
are not compatible.
6. Conclusion
As discussed in this paper, interesting constraints and hierarchies have been proposed andentertained in the recent investigation of Japanese syntax. Ueda (2007) examines Japanese
modals in detail and entertains the constraint that a clause can contain at most one modal.
Kageyama (1993) proposed an influential constraint on lexical complex verb formation,
namely, the transitivity harmony principle in (20). Saito (2012) observes the hierarchy ofJapanese complementizers in (42), repeated below in (75).
(75) [CP … [CP … [CP … Finite (no)] Force (ka)] Report (to)]Endo (2010), on the other hand, examines the hierarchy of discourse particles, which can beformulated as in (76).
(76) [[[ TP wa] yo] ne/na]
These constraints and hierarchies constitute facts to be explained in the Minimalist syntax.
The same is true of any alternative proposals at the same descriptive level.
In this paper, I explored the possibility that they are consequences of the properties of therelevant lexical items. In Section 2, I showed that Japanese modals are either suffixes or sselect T, and argued that the uniqueness condition follows from these lexical properties. In
Section 3, I proposed that a characteristic property of Japanese lexical complex verbs is that
their component verbs participate in selectional relations. Given this, Kageyama’s (1993)
constraint on those complex verbs can be explained in terms of the s-selection requirementsof v*/v. In Section 4, I argued that the hierarchy of complementizers in (75) is a consequenceof the s-selection requirement of no and the semantics of the complemetizers. Finally, in
Section 5, I suggested that the discourse particles are hierarchically organized as in (76)because wa s-selects T and any other ordering of yo, ne and na causes a contradiction in thecomposit speech act.
The case studies reported here are by no means exhaustive. But taken together, theysuggest that there is no need to postulate constraints or hierarchies for Japanese phrase
structure as the relevant facts are derived from lexical properties. This supports the
Minimalist hypothesis that all that is required for phrase structure building is the minimal
operation, Merge.

-412- 412 -Conditions on Japanese Phrase Structure (M. Saito)

References
Chomsky, N. (1995a) “Bare Phrase Structure.” In G. Webelhuth, ed., Government and Binding
Theory and the Minimalist Program, Blackwell, Oxford, 383-439.
Chomsky, N. (1995b) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Chomsky, N. (2012) “Problems of Projection,” unpublished ms., MIT.
Endo, Y. (2010) “The Cartography of Sentence Final Particles.” In N. Hasegawa, ed., New
Developments in Syntactic Theory and the Analysis of Japanese: Beyond Propositions, Kaitakusha,
Tokyo, 67-94. (in Japanese)
Haraguchi, T. (2012) “Distributions of Modals and Sentence Final Particles: Selection or Something
Else?”, presented at the Thirteenth Workshop of the International Joint Research Project on
Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition (February 20, 2012), Center for Linguistics,
Nanzan University.
Hiraiwa, K. and S. Ishihara (2002) “Missing Links: Cleft, Sluicing, and ‘no da’ construction in
Japanese,” Proceedings of Humit 2001, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics #43, 35-54.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1992) “Complex Predicates in Control.” In R. K. Larson, et al., eds., Control andGrammar, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 109-147.
Kageyama, T. (1993) Grammar and Word Formation, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo. (in Japanese)
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965) “Causative Forms in Japanese,” Foundations of Language 1, 30-50.
Li, Yafei (1993) “Structural Head and Aspectuality,” Language 69, 480-504.
Matsumoto, E. (2010) Quotative Expressions and Sentential Complementation in Japanese, B.A.
thesis, Nanzan University. (in Japanese)
Murasugi, K. and T. Hashimoto (2004) “Three Pieces of Acquisition Evidence for the v-VP Frame,”
Nanzan Linguistics 1, 1-19.
Plann, S. (1982) “Indirect Questions in Spanish,” Linguistic Inquiry 13, 297-312.
Rivero, M.-L. (1994) “On Indirect Questions, Commands, and Spanish Quotative Que,” Linguistic
Inquiry 25, 547-554.
Saito, M. (2012) “Sentence Types and the Japanese Right Periphery.” In G. Grewendorf and T. E.
Zimmermann, eds., Discourse and Grammar: From Sentence Types to Lexical Categories, Walterde Gruyter, Berlin, 147-175.
Saito, M. (to appear) “Selectional Restrictions and the Formation of Complex Verbs,” in H. Kishimoto
and Y. Yumoto, eds., New Developments in the Research on Complex Predicates, Hituzi Syobo,
Tokyo. (in Japanese)
Saito, M. and T. Haraguchi (2012) “Deriving the Cartography of the Japanese Right Periphery: The
Case of Sentence-Final Discourse Particles,” Iberia 4.2, 104-123.
Tenny, C. (2006) “Evidentiality, Experiencers and the Syntax of Sentience in Japanese,” Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 15, 195-244.
Ueda, Y. (2007) “Syntactic Structure and Person Restrictions of Japanese Modals.” In N. Hasegawa,ed., Main Clause Phenomena in Japanese, Kaitakusha, Tokyo, 123-150. (in Japanese)-413- 413 -ARGUMENT ELLIPSIS IN ACQUISITION *Koji Sugisaki
Mie University

1. Introduction
Japanese is a language that allows productive use of null arguments in finite clauses. In(2), which constitutes replies to the question in (1), either the matrix subject or the matrix
object is not overtly expressed. Similarly, in (3), both the subject and the object of theembedded clause are phonologically empty.
(1)

Taroo-wa
Taroo-TOPdoo
howshimashita
did

ka?
Q

‘What happened to Taroo?’
(2)

a.

e

ano
that

kaisya-ni
company-DAT

syuusyoku
employmentshimashita.
didsaiyourecruitment

shimashita.
did‘He got employed by that company.’b. Anothat

kaisya-ga
company-NOM

e‘That company recruited him.’(3)

Hanako-ga
Taroo-ni[ eHanako-NOM Taroo-DATesaiyousuru
recruitment do

to ]
that

yakusokusita.
promised‘Hanako promised Taroo that she will recruit him.’
It has been observed at least since Otani and Whitman (1991) that null objects inJapanese allow sloppy-identity interpretation when their antecedent contains the anaphor
zibun ‘self’. For example, the sentence with an empty object in (4b) is ambiguous: It means
either that Ken respects Taroo’s mother (strict-identity interpretation) or that Ken respects his* I would like to thank Ayaka Kashitani, Yusuke Suzuki, Hajime Takeyasu, and Etsuko Yoshida for
their help in conducting the experiments reported in this study. I am grateful to Keiko Murasugi,
Koichi Otaki, Mamoru Saito, Daiko Takahashi, and Kensuke Takita for valuable comments. The usual
disclaimers apply. This study was supported in part by the grant from the Japanese Ministry of
Education and Science to the Center for Linguistics at Nanzan University for establishment of centers
for advanced research in private universities (International Collaborative Research Project on
Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition), as well as by the Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists(B) (#23720248) awarded to the author.

-415-

2008

2012







own mother (sloppy-identity interpretation). Oku (1998) observes that the same is true withnull subjects: The missing embedded subject in (5b) can be construed either as Taroo’s childor as Ken’s own child.1(4)a. Taroo-wa
Taroo-TOP

zibun-noself-GENhahaoya-omother-ACC

sonkeisiteiru.
respect‘Taroo1 respects his1 mother.’b. Ken-mo
Ken-alsoesonkeisiteiru.
respect

Lit. ‘Ken respects e , too.’(5)

a. Taroo-wa [Taroo-TOPomotteiru.
thinkzibun-noself-GENkodomo-ga
child-NOM

eigo-oEnglish-ACC

hanasu
speak

to ]
that

‘Taroo1 thinks that his1 child speaks English.’b. Ken-wa
Ken-TOP[efuransugo-oFrench-ACC

hanasu
speak

to ]
that

omotteiru.
think

Lit. ‘Ken thinks that e speaks French.’
In order to account for the availability of sloppy interpretation, a number of syntactic
studies have proposed that Japanese permits ellipsis of argument DPs (e.g. Oku 1998; Saito
2003, 2007; Takahashi 2008). According to this ‘Argument Ellipsis’ analysis, the sloppy
interpretations for (4b) and (5b) stem from the structures containing full-fledged DPs, andthese argument DPs are elided under identity with their antecedent DPs, as shown in (6b) and
(7b).
(6)

(7)

a. Taroo-wa
Taroo-TOP

zibun-noself-GENhahaoya-omother-ACC

sonkeisiteiru.
respect

b. Ken-mo
Ken-also

zibun-noself-GENhahaoya-omother-ACC

sonkeisiteiru.
respecta. Taroo-wa [Taroo-TOPomotteiru.
thinkzibun-noself-GENkodomo-ga
child-NOM

1

eigo-oEnglish-ACC

hanasu
speak

to ]
that

The same observation holds for null subjects and null objects in Korean. See Kim (1999) and Saito
and An (2010) for a detailed discussion.

-416- 416 -Argument Ellipsis in Acquisition (K. Sugisaki)b. Ken-wa[
Ken-TOPomotteiru.
thinkzibun-noself-GENkodomo-ga
child-NOM

furansugo-oFrench-ACC

hanasu
speak

to ]
that

This study demonstrates experimentally that Japanese-speaking preschool children permit
the sloppy-identity interpretation both for null subjects and null objects, thereby suggestingthat the knowledge of Argument Ellipsis is already in their grammar. This finding will befurther corroborated by the experimental observation that, in contrast to arguments, children
do not permit ellipsis of adjuncts. In addition, it will also be demonstrated experimentally thatchildren do not allow wh-phrases to undergo Argument Ellipsis. These findings together point
to the conclusion that Japanese-speaking preschool children already have completely adultlike knowledge of Argument Ellipsis, which is consistent with the view that the availability of
Argument Ellipsis and its constraints directly follows from the properties of biologicallydetermined Universal Grammar (UG).
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we overview evidence for postulating
Argument Ellipsis in Japanese, and in Section 3, we summarize two major approaches to thecross-linguistic variation in Argument Ellipsis. In Section 4, we draw a certain prediction
from these parametric proposals for the acquisition of Argument Ellipsis, and in Section 5
and 6, we evaluate this prediction by conducting an experiment. Section 7 reports results ofan experiment investigating children’s knowledge of the constraint that adjuncts cannot
undergo ellipsis, and Section 8 is dedicated to the experiment examining children’s
knowledge of the ban on eliding wh-phrases. Section 9 briefly concludes the discussion.
2. Argument Ellipsis in Japanese
The availability of sloppy interpretation for an empty object is unexpected if the object
position is occupied by a null pronoun pro, since pronouns typically do not permit sloppyidentity interpretation, as exemplified in (8b).
(8)

a. Taroo-ga
Taroo-NOM

zibun-noself-GEN

konpyuutaa-ocomputer-ACC

kowasita.
destroyed‘Taroo1 destroyed his1 computer.’b. Hanako-mo
Hanako-alsosore-oit-ACCkowasita.
destroyed‘Hanako2 also destroyed his1 computer.’ /* ‘Hanako2 also destroyed her2 computer.’
In order to account for the availability of sloppy interpretation for null objects in Japanese,
Otani and Whitman (1991) built on Huang’s (1991) study on Chinese null objects, and put
forth the analysis in which the relevant interpretation of (8b) stems from VP-ellipsis. One of-417- 417 -

2008

2012







the fundamental assumptions of their analysis is that Japanese has overt V-to-T raising, andhence the sentences in (8) are represented as in (9) in overt syntax.2 In the LF component, theantecedent VP is copied onto the empty VP, yielding (10b), which contains an anaphor in its
object position as well. The LF representation in (10b) accounts for the sloppy interpretationof the sentence involving a null object in (8b).
(9)

In Overt Syntax:
a. [TP John-ga [T' [VP zibun-no
John-NOM
self-GEN

konpyuutaa-o tV ]computer-ACC[T kowasiV-taT ] ] ]destroyede][T kowasiV-taT ] ] ]destroyeda. [TP John-ga [T' [VP zibun-no
John-NOM
self-GEN

konpyuutaa-o tV ]computer-ACC[T kowasiV-taT ] ] ]destroyedb. [TP Mary-mo [T' [VP zibun-no
Mary-also
self-GEN

konpyuutaa-o tV ]computer-ACC[T kowasiV-taT ] ] ]destroyedb. [TP Mary-mo [T' [VPMary-also(10)

In the LF Component:

Even though the VP-ellipsis analysis successfully explains why null objects in Japanesepermit sloppy interpretations, it faces a variety of problems (see Hoji 1998, Oku 1998, Saito
2007, and Takahashi 2008). Most notable is the observation by Oku (1998) that even nullsubjects allow the sloppy-identity reading, as already illustrated in (5) and repeated here as(11). Given that subjects arguably stay outside of VP in overt syntax and in LF, the VPellipsis analysis by Otani and Whitman (1991) would predict that the sloppy interpretation
should not be possible with null subjects, contrary to facts.
(11)

a. Taroo-wa [Taroo-TOPomotteiru.
thinkzibun-noself-GENkodomo-ga
child-NOM

eigo-oEnglish-ACC

hanasu
speak

to ]
that

‘Taroo1 thinks that his1 child speaks English.’b. Ken-wa
Ken-TOP[efuransugo-oFrench-ACC

hanasu
speak

to ]
that

omotteiru.
think‘Ken2 thinks that his1 child / his2 child speaks French.’
In order to accommodate both the null-object examples as in (4) and the null-subject
examples as in (5), Oku (1998), Saito (2003, 2007) and Takahashi (2008) (among others) put
2

For a detailed discussion of why some languages permit ellipsis of such ‘headless’ phrases but
others don’t, see Funakoshi (2012).

-418- 418 -Argument Ellipsis in Acquisition (K. Sugisaki)

forth an alternative analysis in which only the relevant argument DP (not the VP) is elided.
Under their Argument Ellipsis analysis, the sentences in (11) have the representations in (12)in overt syntax. After the derivation enters into LF, the antecedent DP, namely the anaphoric
subject in (12a), is copied onto the empty subject position in (12b), resulting in the LF
representation in (13b), which successfully yields the sloppy interpretation of the null subject.
(12)

In Overt Syntax:
a. Taroo-wa [CP [DP zibun-no
Taroo-TOP
self-GENto ] omotteiru.
that
think

kodomo-ga ]child-NOM[T eigo-oEnglish-ACC

hanasu ]
speak

e

]

[T furansugo -oFrench-ACC

hanasu ]speak

a. Taroo-wa [CP [DP zibun-no
Taroo-TOP
self-GENto ] omotteiru.
that
think

kodomo-ga ]child-NOM[T eigo-oEnglish-ACC

hanasu ]speakb. Ken-wa[CP [DP zibun-no
Ken-TOP
self-GENto ] omotteiru.
that
think

kodomo-ga ]child-NOM[T furansugo -oFrench-ACC

hanasu ]speakb. Ken-wa[CP [DP
Ken-TOPto ] omotteiru.
that
think
(13)

In the LF Component:

3. Approaches to the Parametric Variation in Argument Ellipsis
Oku (1998) observes that the availability of Argument Ellipsis is subject to crosslinguistic variation: Argument Ellipsis is permitted in Japanese but is not allowed inlanguages like Spanish or English.3 As illustrated in (14b), Spanish permits null subjects, butthese null subjects do not have sloppy interpretation: (14b) only means that Juan believes that
Maria’s proposal will be accepted, and it never means that Juan believes that Juan’s proposal
will be accepted. In the English example (15), which contains a verb that optionally allow anempty object, the second clause simply means that John did some eating activity, and neverpermits sloppy reading.

3

See also Takahashi (2007) for a detailed cross-linguistic survey concerning the availability of
Argument Ellipsis.

-419- 419 -



Spanish (Oku 1998:305):
a. Maria cree
[ queMaria believes
that

su propuesta
her proposal

será
aceptada ] ywill-be accepted
and

2008

(14)

2012

‘Maria1 believes that her1 proposal will be accepted and …’
b. JuanJuantambién
toocree[
believes

que
that

será
aceptada ].
will-be accepted‘Juan2 also believes that her1 proposal will be accepted.’* ‘Juan2 also believes that his2 proposal will be accepted.’(15)

English (Oku 1998:311):
Bill1 ate his1 shoe, and John ate, too.

To account for the cross-linguistic difference between Japanese (and Korean) on one
hand and English and Spanish on the other, Oku (1998) and Takahashi (2008) proposed thatthe availability of Argument Ellipsis in a given language is tightly connected to theavailability of (Japanese-type) scrambling.4 According to this “scrambling approach”, both ofthese properties stem from the parameter proposed by Bokovi and Takahashi (1998), which
can be called the Parameter of -feature Strength.
(16)

The Parameter of -feature Strength: -features are {strong, weak}.

Bokovi and Takahashi (1998) argue that -features of a verb are weak in Japanese,while they are strong in non-scrambling languages like English and Spanish. Given their
weak nature, -features of Japanese verbs need not be checked in overt syntax. This propertyof Japanese makes it possible for an argument to be base-generated in a ‘scrambled’ position,
as shown in (17a). In the LF component, the ‘scrambled’ object undergoes a lowering
operation and merges with the predicate, in order to check the selectional features of the verb.
(17)a. In Overt Syntax:[TP Ken-o [TP Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-ga[VP
Ken-ACC Taroo-NOM
Hanako-NOM
Lit. ‘Ken, Taroo said that Hanako scolded.’sikatta ]scoldedto ]thatitta ]]
said[TP Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-ga[VP Ken-osikatta]
Taroo-NOM
Hanako-NOM
Ken-ACC scolded

to ]
that

itta ]]
said

b. In the LF Component:[TP

Such a derivation is not available in English or Spanish, since -features in these languages
are strong and hence they must be checked in overt syntax soon after verbs are introduced
into the derivation.
4

See also Saito (2003) for a related proposal.

-420- 420 -Argument Ellipsis in Acquisition (K. Sugisaki)

Building on Bokovi and Takahashi’s LF analysis of scrambling, Oku (1998) and
Takahashi (2008) argue that the possibility of Argument Ellipsis in Japanese also follows
from the weakness of -features. Since -features of Japanese verbs need not undergo
checking in overt syntax, an argument position can be literally absent in Japanese, as shownin (18). In the LF component, the sentence in (18b) comes to have a licit transitive
configuration through the LF-copying of an antecedent DP, as shown in (19b).
(18)

In Overt Syntax:
a. Taroo-ga
Taroo-NOM[VP [DP zibun-no
self-GEN

konpyuutaa-o ]computer-ACC

kowasita.
destroyed]]

kowasita.
destroyed][VP [DP zibun-no
self-GEN

konpyuutaa-o ]computer-ACC

kowasita.
destroyed][VP [DP zibun-no
self-GEN

LF Copy
konpyuutaa-o ]computer-ACC

kowasita.
destroyed]‘Taroo1 destroyed his1 computer.’b. Hanako-mo
Hanako-also(19)[VP [DPe

In the LF Component:a. Taroo-ga
Taroo-NOM

b. Hanako-mo
Hanako-alsoThis way, Oku (1998) and Takahashi (2008) attribute both the availability of scrambling andthat of Argument Ellipsis to a single parametric property of Japanese: the property that features are weak.
In contrast, building on Kuroda’s (1988) proposal that the main source of the various
differences between English and Japanese is the presence vs. absence of obligatory
agreement, Saito (2007) claims that Argument Ellipsis in Japanese stems from the absence ofovert agreement in this language. This “anti-agreement approach” adopts Chomsky’s (2000)
system of agreement, in which agreement is a probe-goal relation induced by a set of
uninterpretable -features on the functional heads of T and v. In the case of object agreement
illustrated in (20), the uninterpretable -features of v agree with the matching, interpretable set of the object DP. The object satisfies the condition that the goal must have anuninterpretable Case feature (the Activation Condition), and hence qualifies as a goal. The
agreement relation results in the deletion of the uninterpretable -features on v and theuninterpretable Case feature of the DP.
(20)

a. … [vP

v{u }

[VP

V

DP{i , uCase} ]]b. … [vP

v{u }

[VP

V

DP{i , uCase} ]]-421- 421 -

2008

2012







Saito (2007) argues that the agreement relation illustrated above is obligatory inlanguages like English and Spanish, and that this obligatory nature of agreement excludes
Argument Ellipsis from these languages. For example, the derivation of the English examplesin (21) proceeds as shown in (22). The object DP his friend in (21a) must be copied into theobject position of (21b) for the latter sentence to be properly interpreted. If we assume that
only LF objects can be employed in LF-copying, the DP his friend must be copied into (21b)from the LF representation of (21a).5 However, this DP has already agreed with its v in (21a)and hence, the uninterpretable Case feature that rendered this DP active has already been
deleted. Then, given the Activation Condition, it does not qualify as a goal in the required
Agree relation in (21b), and consequently, the derivation crashes due to the remaining
uninterpretable -features of v.
(21)

a. John brought [DP his friend].
b.* But Bill did not bring

(22)

.

Derivation:a. In Overt Syntax:

AgreeJohn [vP v{u }b. At LF:

John [vP v{u }Agreec. In Overt Syntax: Bill did not [vP v{u }brought[DP his friend{i , uCase}]].

brought[DP his friend{i , uCase}]
Copy

].

bring

[DP his friend{i, uCase}] ].

The corresponding derivation converges in Japanese, however, given that Japanese lacks
overt agreement, which, according to Saito (2007), indicates that the uninterpretable features on T and v are optional in this language. The derivation of the Japanese examples in(23) proceeds as shown in (24). In (23), the object DP zibun-no tomodati ‘self’s friend’ iscopied from the LF representation of (23a) into the object position of (23b), as in (24c). Since-features on a functional head are optional, v in (23b) need not have uninterpretable features. Thus, the object DP in (23a) can be successfully copied into (23b) even though its
uninterpretable Case feature has already been deleted, and the derivation converges.
(23)

a. John-wa[DP zibun-no
John-TOP
self-GEN

tomodati-o ]friend-ACC

turetekita.
brought‘John1 brought his1 friend.’b. Demo Mary-wa
but
Mary-TOP

tureteko-nakatta.
brought-not‘But Mary2 did not bring her2 friend.’5

See Saito (2007) for evidence that only LF objects can be employed in the LF-copying operation
involved in Argument Ellipsis.

-422- 422 -Argument Ellipsis in Acquisition (K. Sugisaki)(24)

Derivation:a. In Overt Syntax:
John-wa[vP [DP zibun-no
John-TOP
self-GEN

tomodati-o{i , uCase}]friend-ACC

turetekita
broughtb. At LF:
John-wa[vP [DP zibun-no
John-TOP
self-GEN

tomodati-o{i , uCase}]friend-ACC

turetekita
broughtc. In Overt Syntax:
Mary-wa [vP [DP zibun-no
Mary-TOP
self-GEN

Copy
tomodati-o{i, uCase}] tureteko-nakatta
friend-ACC
brought-not

Agreev{u } ].

v{u } ].

v{…} ].

To summarize this section, we have reviewed two major proposals concerning theparametric variation in Argument Ellipsis. The scrambling approach, adopted by Oku (1998)
and Takahashi (2008), proposed that the existence of Argument Ellipsis in Japanese and its
absence in English and Spanish are correlated with the availability of (Japanese-type)scrambling. In contrast, developing the idea of Kuroda (1998), Saito (2007) proposed theanti-agreement approach, which claimed that the possibility of Argument Ellipsis in Japaneseis closely tied to the absence of overt agreement in this language.6 Even though these
proposals significantly differ in their details, they share the fundamental assumption that aparameter of UG establishes a tight connection between the availability of Argument Ellipsis
and other prominent properties of Japanese.7 The experiments to be discussed in Section 5
and 6 attempt to evaluate this basic insight of their proposals, by investigating the acquisitionof Japanese.
4. Prediction for Child Japanese
As we have seen in the previous section, theoretical studies on Japanese syntax suggestthat Argument Ellipsis is closely tied to other prominent characteristics of Japanese, such as
6ener and Takahashi (2010) provide further support for Saito’s (2007) anti-agreement approach byshowing that in Turkish, only subjects (but not objects) resist Argument Ellipsis, which is expected inlight of the observation that only subjects agree with predicates in finite clauses. Otaki et al. (in press)
also confirm the validity of this approach by demonstrating that in a Mayan language called Kaqchikel,
which exhibits overt subject and object agreements, neither null subjects nor null objects permit
sloppy interpretation.
In contrast, null subjects in languages like Javanese, Bangla, and Hindi seem to disallow sloppy
interpretation, despite the absence of overt agreement between the subject DPs and the predicates. See
Sato (2012) and Simpson et al. (under review) for a detailed discussion.
See also Kitahara (2011) for conceptual problems of Saito’s (2007) anti-agreement approach, andan alternative, agreement-based approach to the cross-linguistic variation in Argument Ellipsis.

7

See Otaki (2012) for an approach that relates the availability of Argument Ellipsis to the absence of
fusional case morphology.

-423- 423 -

2008

2012







scrambling or the lack of overt agreement. Previous acquisition literature reports that both
scrambling and agreement are acquired fairly early, at least by the age of three. For example,
using an act-out task, Otsu (1994) investigated whether Japanese-speaking three- and fouryear-olds can correctly interpret scrambled sentences as in (25b). The results showed thatyoung children had virtually no difficulty in understanding scrambled sentences, once thediscourse context was provided by adding a sentence as in (25a).8(25)

a. Kooen-ni
park-inahirusan-ga
duck-NOM

imashita.
was‘There was a duck in the park.’b. Sonotheahirusan-oduck-ACC

kamesan-ga
turtle-NOM

osimashita.
pushed‘A turtle pushed the duck.’Hyams (2002) summarizes the results of various acquisition studies, and observes thatchildren acquiring “rich” agreement languages such as Italian and Catalan obey subject-verb
agreement requirements from the earliest stage (before or around the age of two), even before
they produce all the forms in a paradigm. For example, singular verb morphology is typicallyacquired before plural morphology, and first- and third-person forms appear earlier thansecond-person forms. Nevertheless, agreement is almost always correct for those forms thatare used. According to Hyams (2002), across children and languages, agreement errors areunder 4%, as shown in Table 1. Given the finding that agreement errors are extremely rare in
the acquisition of “rich” agreement languages, we can reasonably speculate that children
acquiring agreementless languages like Japanese would also be sensitive to the absence ofovert agreement from the early stages of acquisition.
Given that we have reasons to believe that the properties that are allegedly connected
to Argument Ellipsis are acquired before the age of three, both of the approaches to theparameter of Argument Ellipsis discussed in the previous section should make the following
prediction:(26)

Prediction for Child Japanese:
Japanese-speaking preschool children have knowledge of Argument Ellipsis.

The next two sections report results of experiments which evaluate the validity of thisprediction: Section 5 investigates whether children permit sloppy interpretation for null
objects, and Section 6 examines whether children allow this type of interpretation forembedded null subjects.

8

See also Murasugi and Kawamura (2005) and Sano (2007) for early acquisition of scrambling inJapanese.

-424- 424 -Argument Ellipsis in Acquisition (K. Sugisaki)Child

LanguageAgen% error

SourceSimoneMartina
Diana

GermanItalianItalian

1;07-2;08
1;08-2;07
1;10-2;06

1732
478
610

1 Clahsen and Penke 1992
1.6 Guasti 1994
1.5 Guasti 1994

Guglielmo
Claudia
Francesco
Marco

ItalianItalianItalianItalian2;02-2;07
1;04-2;04
1;05-2;10
1;05-3;00

201
1410
1264
415

3.3
3
2
4

Marti
Josep
GiselaCatalan/Spanish
Catalan/Spanish
Catalan

1;09-2;05
1;09-2;06
1;10-2;06

178
136
81

0.56 Torrens 1992
3 Torrens 1992
1.2 Torrens 1992

GuillemCatalan

1;09-2;06

129

2.3 Torrens 1992

Guasti 1994
Pizzuto and Caselli 1992
Pizzuto and Caselli 1992
Pizzuto and Caselli 1992

Table 1: Percentage of Subject-Verb Agreement Errors in Child Language (Hyams 2002:231)
5. Experiment 1: Ellipsis of Object DPs
5.1. Subjects and Method
In order to determine whether Japanese-speaking preschool children permit sloppy
interpretation as a consequence of Argument Ellipsis, an experiment was conducted with 10
Japanese-speaking children, ranging in age from 3(years);01(month) to 5;07 (mean age
4;05).9 The experiment employed a modified version of the Truth-Value Judgment Task
(Crain and Thornton 1998). In this task, each child was told a story, which was accompanied
by a series of pictures presented on a laptop computer. At the end of each story, a puppet
described verbally what he thought had happened in the story. The task for the child was tojudge whether the puppet’s description was true or false, by feeding him either a nicestrawberry or a horrible green pepper. The experiment contained (i) two sentences with null
objects, and (ii) two sentences with overt pronouns, in order to determine whether children
allow the sloppy interpretation for null objects while disallowing that interpretation for overt
pronouns. A sample story and the test sentences that followed this story are presented in (27)and (28).
(27)

9

Sample Story:
Today, Panda and Pig enjoyed riding on their favorite tricycles. Now they decided towash them. Panda said, “Oh! My tricycle is very dirty.” Pig said, “Shall I help you
wash your tricycle?” Panda replied, “No, thanks. I will try to do it by myself, so you
can work on your own.” They started washing their favorite tricycles.

The experiment reported in this section is based on Sugisaki (2007).

-425- 425 -

2008

(28)

2012





Sample Test Sentences:
a. Pandasan-ga
zibun-nopanda-NOM
self-GEN

sanrinsya-otricycle-ACC

aratteru
washingyo.
PRT‘A panda1 is washing his1 tricycle.’b. Butasan-mo
pig-alsoe /sore-oit-ACC

aratteru
washingyo.
PRT‘A pig is also washing e / it.’5.2. Results and Discussion
The results are summarized in Table 2.
Sloppy-identity Interpretation of Null Objects

90% acceptance (18/20)

Sloppy-identity Interpretation of Overt Pronouns

85% rejection (17/20)

Table 2: Summary of the Results of Experiment 1
The obtained results clearly indicate that Japanese-speaking preschool children permit thesloppy-identity interpretation for null-object sentences, while disallowing that interpretationfor overt pronouns.10 These results are in conformity with the prediction in (26), and suggestthat the knowledge of Argument Ellipsis is already in the grammar of Japanese-speaking
preschool children.
However, given that this experiment used sentences involving null objects, there remains
a possibility that children may have employed VP-ellipsis, not Argument Ellipsis, to derive
the sloppy interpretation. This possibility gains more plausibility in light of the proposal by
Takahashi (2008) that Chinese has VP-ellipsis but does not have Argument Ellipsis. As
observed by Huang (1991) and Otani and Whitman (1991), null objects in Chinese exhibit thesloppy interpretation: The null object in (29b) can mean either rumors about Zhangsan (strict
interpretation) or rumors about Mali (sloppy interpretation). In sharp contrast, according to
Takahashi (2008), null subjects in Chinese do not permit sloppy interpretation: The missing
10

See Matsuo (2007) for a related study which also investigated children’s interpretation of nullobject sentences. Otaki and Yusa (2012) confirmed that Japanese-speaking children permit ellipsis ofobject DPs, by demonstrating that children have access to quantificational interpretation of null
objects.

-426- 426 -Argument Ellipsis in Acquisition (K. Sugisaki)

embedded subject in (30b) may refer to Zhangsan’s child but cannot refer to Lisi’s child.
(29)

a. Zhangsan
Zhangsanbu
notxihuan guany ziji
likeabout selfdeGENyaoyan.
rumor‘Zhangsan1 does not like rumors about himself1.’
b. Mali
Mali

ye
also

bu
not

xihuanlike

Lit. ‘Mali does not like e(30)

a. Zhangsan
Zhangsan

shuo
say

e .

either.’ziji deself GEN

haizi
child

mei
take

na
not

qian.
money

‘Zhangsan1 said that his1 child did not take money.’b. LisiLisi

ye shuo
too say

e

mei
take

na
not

qian.
money

Lit. ‘Lisi also said that e did not take money.’(Takahashi 2008:415)

This observation suggests that UG may permit two options to derive the sloppy
interpretation of null objects: VP-ellipsis (preceded by overt V-to-T raising) as in Chinese,and Argument Ellipsis as in Japanese (and Korean). In order to make sure that child Japanese
is not like adult Chinese and that it indeed has Argument Ellipsis, the experiment reported in
the next section makes use of sentences that contain an empty argument in the embedded
subject position.
6. Experiment 2: Ellipsis of Subject DPs
6.1. Subjects and Method
In order to re-evaluate the validity of the prediction in (26), an experiment was conductedwith 24 Japanese-speaking children, ranging in age from 4;11 to 6;07 (mean age 5;10).11
These children were divided into two groups. One group of children (Experimental Group)
was presented test sentences involving an embedded clause with a null subject, as in (31).
The other group of children (Control Group) was presented test sentences involving an overt
pronoun in the embedded subject position, as in (32). Both types of sentences wereaccompanied by exactly the same stories.
11

The results of a small-scale pilot experiment suggested that three-year-olds tend to have difficulty
in interpreting a sequence of two sentences both of which involve an embedded clause as in (31) and(32) (irrespective of whether the sentence contains a null subject or an overt subject), presumably due
to memory limitations. Thus, this experiment focuses on relatively old children. Some refinements ofexperimental methodology would be necessary to address the question of whether three-year-olds
permit the sloppy interpretation of null subjects, which I have to leave for future research.

-427- 427 -

2008

(31)

2012





Test Sentence with a Null Subject:a. Zousan-wa
[ zibun-no
elephant-TOP
self-GENto ] omotteru
yo.
that
think
PRT



e-ga
picture-NOM

ichibanthe-first

jyouzuda
good‘The elephant1 thinks that his1 picture is the best.’b. Raionsan-molion-also[eichibanthe-first

jyouzuda
good

to ]
that

omotteru
think

yo.
PRT

‘The lion also thinks that e is the best.”(32)

Test Sentence with an Overt Pronominal Subject:a. Zousan-wa
[ zibun-noe-ga
elephant-TOP
self-GEN
picture-NOM
to ] omotteru
yo.
that
think
PRT

ichibanthe-first

jyouzuda
good‘The elephant1 thinks that his1 picture is the best.’b. Raionsan-molion-also[

sore-ga
it-NOMichiban jyouzuda
the-first good

to ]
that

omotteru
think

yo.
PRT

‘The lion also thinks that it is the best.”
Each child was presented with four target trials and two filler trials. Among the fourtarget trails, two of them were aimed at investigating whether children allow sloppy
interpretation for null subjects or overt pronouns, and the other two of them were aimed atinvestigating whether children allow strict interpretation for null subjects or overt pronouns.
The task was a modified version of the Truth-Value Judgment Task (Crain and Thornton
1998). In each trial, a child was told a story, which was accompanied by a series of pictures
presented on a laptop computer. At the end of each story, a puppet described verbally what hethought had happened in the story, using sentences as in (31) or (32). The task for the child
was to judge whether the puppet’s description was correct or wrong, by pointing at one of thecards the puppet had in his hands:  (circle, which means ‘correct’) or (cross, which means‘wrong’). Sample stories and the test sentences that followed these stories are given in (33) (36).
(33)

Sample Story 1 (which investigates the availability of sloppy reading):
Elephant, Lion, and Monkey are drawing their portraits. Elephant said to Lion, “Hey,look at this! I think my portrait is the best.” Looking at Elephant’s portrait, Lion
replied, “Your portrait looks very good, but I think mine is the best.”-428- 428 -Argument Ellipsis in Acquisition (K. Sugisaki)(34)

Puppet:a. Zousan-wa
[elephant-TOP
to ] omotteru
that
think

zibun-noself-GEN
yo.
PRT

e-ga
picture-NOM

ichibanthe-first

jyouzuda
goodjyouzuda
good

to ]
that

‘The elephant1 thinks that his1 picture is the best.’b. Raionsan-molion-alsoomotteru
think

[

e

/

sore-ga
it-NOMichibanthe-first

yo.
PRT‘The lion also thinks that e / it is the best.”(35)

Sample Story 2 (which investigates the availability of strict reading):
Rabbit, Squirrel, and Dog are reading their picture books. Rabbit said to Squirrel,“Hey, look at this! I think my picture book is the most amusing.” Looking at Rabbit’s
picture book, Squirrel replied, “Yes, I agree. My picture book is very good, but I
think yours is the most amusing.”(36)

Puppet:a. Usagisan-wa[
rabbit-TOP
to ] omotteru
that
think

zibun-noself-GENyo.
PRTehon-gaichibanpicture book-NOM the-first‘The rabbit1 thinks that her1 picture book is the most amusing.’b. Risusan-mo [squirrel-alsoomotteru
think

e

/

sore-ga
it-NOMichibanthe-first

omosiroiamusingyo.
PRT‘The squirrel also thinks that e / it is the most amusing.”-429- 429 -

to ]
that

omosiroiamusing

2008

2012







6.2. Results and Discussion
The results are summarized in Table 3. Children permitted a strict-identity interpretation
both for the sentences with a null subject and the sentences with an overt pronominal subject.
In contrast, children showed a strong tendency to allow sloppy-identity interpretation only
when the sentence contains a null subject, and to disallow this reading when the sentence
involves an overt pronominal subject. These results are in conformity with the prediction in(26), and suggest that the knowledge of Argument Ellipsis is already in the grammar ofJapanese-speaking preschool children. The evidence presented in this section would be moreconvincing than the one presented in the previous section, given that the experiment reported
in this section made use of sentences involving null subjects, and hence that the sloppy
interpretation children provided for these empty arguments cannot be attributed to VPellipsis.
strict-identity interpretation

sloppy-identity interpretation# of acceptance % of acceptance # of acceptance % of acceptance
Sentences involving
a null subject

23/24

96%

20/24

83%

Sentences involving
an overt pronoun

23/24

96%

4/24

17%

Table 3: Summary of the Results of Experiment 2
7. Experiment 3: The Ban on Adjunct Ellipsis
7.1. A Remaining Question
In the previous two sections, we have obtained evidence that Japanese-speaking
preschool children allow the sloppy interpretation for null arguments. Still, a significant
question remains as to the exact source for this interpretation. Two possibilities are
immediately available. It may be the case that children already have knowledge of Argument
Ellipsis, and that the sloppy interpretation stems from this knowledge in an adult-like way.
Alternatively, it may be the case that Japanese-speaking children are simply allowing any
phrase to be elided, and that the ellipsis of argument DPs is just an instance of that knowledge.
In adult Japanese, the latter possibility can be ruled out based on the observation that adjuncts
do not undergo ellipsis. The relevant example is provided in (37).
(37)

a. Taroo-wa
Taroo-TOPteineini
carefully

kuruma-ocar-ACC‘Taroo washed a car carefully.’-430- 430 -aratta.
washedArgument Ellipsis in Acquisition (K. Sugisaki)b. Demo, Hanako-wa
but
Hanako-TOP

kuruma-ocar-ACC

arawa-nakat-ta.
wash-not-PAST‘But Hanako did not wash a car.’ / *‘But Hanako did not wash a car carefully.’
While the sentence in (37a) contains the adjunct corresponding to carefully, the interpretationof (37b) excludes this adjunct: The sentence in (37b) just means that Hanako did not wash acar, and never means that Hanako didn’t wash it carefully (that is, Hanako washed a car but
not in a careful manner).
Then, in order to verify that Japanese-speaking children indeed have knowledge ofArgument Ellipsis (and not the knowledge that any phrase can be elided), it has to be
demonstrated that they are also adult-like in disallowing the ellipsis of adjuncts.
7.2. Subjects and Method
In order to determine whether Japanese-speaking preschool children are sensitive to theban on adjunct ellipsis, an experiment was conducted with 14 Japanese-speaking children,
ranging in age from 3;09 to 5;08 (mean age 5;01).12 As in the previous experiments, the task
was a modified version of the Truth-Value Judgment (Crain and Thornton 1998). In this task,each child was told a story, which was accompanied by a series of pictures presented on alaptop computer. At the end of each story, a puppet described verbally what he thought had
happened in the story. The task for the child was to judge whether the puppet’s description
was true or false, by pointing at one of the cards the puppet had in his hands:  (circle, whichmeans ‘correct’) or (cross, which means ‘wrong’). The experiment consisted of 2 sentenceswith adjuncts, 2 sentences without adjuncts, 1 filler and 1 practice item. A sample story andthe test sentences that followed this story are presented in (38) and (39). In this story, if
children indeed exclude ellipsis of adjuncts, the test sentence without an adjunct should be
judged as false, since Squirrel actually ate his apples even though it was not in a quickmanner.
(38)

12

Sample Story:
When Frog and Squirrel were about to go out to play soccer, Frog’s mother came out
from the house and brought them some nice apples. Frog wanted to play soccer now,
so he ate his apple very quickly. Squirrel also wanted to play soccer now, but he was
not good at eating fast, so he decided to go out without eating his apple. Looking at it,
Frog said to Squirrel, “I can wait for you, so you can take your time to finish up yourapple.” Squirrel ate his apple slowly, and then they went out to play soccer.

The experiment reported in this section is based on Sugisaki (in press).

-431- 431 -

2008

(39)

2012





Sample Test Sentences:a. Test Sentence with an AdjunctKaerusan-wa
ringo-ofrog-TOP
apple-ACC
Risusan-wa
ringo-osquirrel-TOP
apple-ACC

isoidequickly
isoidequicklytabeta
kedo,
ate
but
tabe-nakat-ta yo.
eat-not-PAST PRT‘Frog ate an apple quickly, but Squirrel did not eat an apple quickly.’b. Test Sentence without an AdjunctKaerusan-wa
ringo-ofrog-TOP
apple-ACC
Risusan-wa
ringo-osquirrel-TOP
apple-ACC

isoidequicklytabeta
kedo,
ate
but
tabe-nakat-ta yo.
eat-not-PAST PRT‘Frog ate an apple quickly, but Squirrel did not eat an apple.’
All the test questions were pre-recorded and came from the laptop computer. In order tomake sure that there should be no crucial intonational difference between the sentences withan adjunct and those without (other than the presence of an adjunct itself), the latter werecreated from the former by deleting the sound corresponding to the adjunct phrase, using
Praat (Boersma and Weenink 2010).
7.3. Results and Discussion
The results are summarized in Table 4. When presented with a context as in (38),children rejected sentences without an adjunct more than 85% of the time, while they
accepted sentences with an adjunct more than 90% of the time. These results succinctly
demonstrate that Japanese-speaking four- and five-year-olds do not permit ellipsis of adjuncts,
even though experiments reported in the previous sections revealed that Japanese-speaking
children allow arguments to be elided. The findings from this experiment, together with thefindings from the previous two experiments, suggest that children are sensitive to theargument-adjunct asymmetry in the possibility of ellipsis, and hence corroborate the claim
made in the previous sections that Japanese-speaking preschoolers indeed have knowledge ofArgument Ellipsis.
Sentences with an Adjunct92.9% acceptance (26/28)

Sentences without an Adjunct85.7% rejection (24/28)

Table 4: Summary of the Results of Experiment 3-432- 432 -Argument Ellipsis in Acquisition (K. Sugisaki)

8. Experiment 4: The Ban on Eliding Wh-phrases
8.1. A Consequence of the Anti-agreement Approach to Argument Ellipsis
As we have seen in Section 3, there are two major parametric approaches to the crosslinguistic variation in Argument Ellipsis: the scrambling approach, which argues that
Argument Ellipsis is available only in those languages with (Japanese-type) scrambling, andthe anti-agreement approach, which claims that Argument Ellipsis is permitted only in thoselanguages that lack overt agreement. In this section, we focus on the latter approach, andexplore a certain consequence of that approach. We further confirm Japanese-speaking
children’s knowledge of Argument Ellipsis, by demonstrating experimentally that children
are also sensitive to that consequence of the anti-agreement approach.13
An immediate consequence of the anti-agreement approach proposed by Saito (2007) andadopted by ener and Takahashi (2010) is that, if a certain type of phrases must undergo
obligatory agreement, then that type of phrases cannot be elliptic even in Japanese. I argue
that this expectation is indeed borne out by wh-phrases. 14
Chomsky (2000) analyzes overt wh-movement as in English as follows. A wh-phrase has
an uninterpretable feature {uWh} and an interpretable feature {iQ}. The former activates thewh-phrase for agreement and movement, and the latter matches and agrees with theuninterpretable feature {uQ} of an interrogative complementizer.

(40)

John knows [CPC{uQ}[TP Mary boughtAgreewhat{iQ, uWh} ] ]MoveDeveloping the proposals by Watanabe (1992) and Hagstrom (1998), Chomsky suggests
the possibility that wh-in-situ constructions also involve an agreement relation as illustrated in(41): The difference between wh-movement and wh-in-situ languages lies in whether theentire wh-phrase is moved (as in English), or only the head undergoes movement overtly or
covertly (as in Japanese).15
Agreenani-o{iQ, uWh}katta ka{uQ}] sitteiru.
(41)
John-wa[CP Mary-ga
John-TOP
Mary-NOM
what-ACC
bought Q
know‘John knows what Mary bought.’

13

The experiment reported in this section is based on Sugisaki (2012).

14

See also Ikawa (in press) for the discussion of why wh-phrases are not amenable to Argument
Ellipsis.
15

Watanabe (1992) argues that a null operator undergoes overt movement in Japanese wh-in-situ
constructions, while Hagstrom (1998) claims that it is the question particle (ka) that undergoes
syntactic movement from a clause-internal position (by the wh-word) to the clause periphery.

-433- 433 -

2008

2012







The obligatory agreement relation between a wh-phrase and an interrogativecomplementizer provides a very simple account for the observation that Argument Ellipsis of
wh-phrases is not permitted, as illustrated in (42).
(42)

a. Speaker A: John-wa
nani-otabeta no?
John-TOP what-ACC ate
Q

Speaker B: Ringo.
apple‘What did John eat?’b. Speaker A: Dewa, Mary-wa
then
Mary-TOP‘An apple.’tabeta no?
ate
Q‘Then, did Mary eat something/that?’ / *‘Then, what did Mary eat?’
The relevant derivation proceeds as shown in (43). The object wh-phrase nani-o ‘what’ iscopied from the LF representation of (42a) into the object position of (42b), as in (43c).
However, this wh-phrase has already agreed with the Complementizer in (42a) and hence, theuninterpretable feature {uWh} that rendered this wh-phrase active has already been deleted.
Then, given the Activation Condition, the copied wh-phrase does not qualify as a goal in therequired agreement relation, and consequently, the derivation involving LF-copying of a whphrase does not converge due to the remaining uninterpretable feature {uQ} of theComplementizer.
(43)

Derivation:a. In Overt Syntax:

b. At LF:

c. In Overt Syntax:

John-wa[DP nani-o{iQ, uWh} ]John-TOP
what-ACC

tabetaate

John-wa[DP nani-o{iQ, uWh} ]John-TOP
what-ACC
Copy
Mary-wa [DP nani-o{iQ, uWh} ]Mary-TOP
what-ACC

tabetaatetabetaate

Agreeno{uQ} ?
Q
no{uQ} ?
Q
Agree
no{uQ} ?
Q

What the above discussion shows is that the absence of wh-phrase ellipsis follows from
Saito’s (2007) anti-agreement approach without any additional cost, if we adopt Chomsky’s(2000) assumption that wh-phrases must undergo agreement with the Complementizer evenin wh-in-situ languages like Japanese. I must hasten to add the following: I do not claim thatthe derivation in (43) would be the only source for the lack of wh-phrase ellipsis. Anotherpossible (and plausible) account for this observation is easily available: A wh-phrase isinherently focused, and a focused material cannot be subject to ellipsis. What I argue here isthat the anti-agreement approach provides an additional way to exclude ellipsis of wh-phrases
in Japanese, and that the relevant mechanisms automatically follow from (independently
motivated) properties of UG. A virtue of deriving the ban on eliding wh-phrases from theanti-agreement approach is that we can obtain a clear prediction for children’s knowledge
about this constraint: Since the obligatory agreement relation between a wh-phrase and an-434- 434 -Argument Ellipsis in Acquisition (K. Sugisaki)

interrogative complementizer directly follows from UG, it is predicted that those Japanesespeaking preschool children who already have the knowledge about Argument Ellipsis should
also have the knowledge that wh-phrases cannot undergo this ellipsis. Since we have alreadyestablished in the experiments discussed in the previous sections that Japanese-speaking
preschool children have knowledge of Argument Ellipsis, we can expect that children are also
sensitive to the ban on eliding wh-phrases. The experiment reported below addresses thequestion of whether this is actually the case.
8.2. Subjects and Method
An experiment was conducted with 16 Japanese-speaking preschool children, ranging inage from 3;09 to 4;07 (mean age 4;01). The task for children was Question-after-Story. In thistask, each child was told a short story, which was accompanied by a series of pictures
presented on a laptop computer. At the end of each story, a puppet appeared on the screen andasked the child two questions with respect to what had happened in the story. The task for thechild was to answer these questions. All the test questions were pre-recorded and came out
from the laptop computer.
A sample story is presented in (44).
(44)

Sample Story:
Duck and Squirrel are playing with their favorite toys. Duck now starts to draw his
favorite airplane. Since Squirrel is not good at drawing, he thinks of just taking alook at how well Duck draws the airplane. However, by looking at Duck’s drawing,
Squirrel now wants to give a try. So Squirrel also starts to draw his favorite train.

Each story was followed by two questions. The first question was always a wh-question
like (45). The second question, which was posed after a child had answered the first one, had
three types: (i) a wh-question as in (46a), (ii) a question involving a null object as in (46b),and (iii) a truncated question as in (46c). In adult Japanese, the questions in (46a) and (46c)are interpreted as a wh-question (and hence requires a short answer “A train”), while thequestion with a null object in (26b) is interpreted as a yes/no question.16

16

The truncated question in (46c) is interpreted as a wh-question since the preceding question in (45)is also a wh-question: It can be interpreted as a yes/no question when the preceding question is also a
yes/no question.

-435- 435 -

2008

(45)

2012



The First Question:

Ahirusan-wa
duck-TOP

nani-okaita
what-ACC draw

kana?
Q

‘What did the duck draw?’(46)

The Second Question:a. Wh-question:

Jyaa,
then

risusan-wa
squirrel-TOP

nani-okaita
what-ACC draw

kana?
Q

‘Then, what did the squirrel draw?’b. Question with a null object: Jyaa,
thenrisusan-wa
squirrel-TOP

kaita
draw

kana?
Q

‘Then, did the squirrel draw (something)?’c. Truncated question:

Jyaa,
then

risusan-wa?
squirrel-TOP‘Then, the squirrel?’
One might worry that some intonational difference between a null-object question like(46b) and a wh-question as in (46a) may play a role for children to conclude that the former is
not a wh-question but a yes/no question. In order to make sure that there should be no crucial
intonational difference between these two types of questions (other than the presence of a whphrase), the null-object questions were created from the corresponding wh-questions bydeleting the sound corresponding the wh-phrase, using Praat (Boersma and Weenink 2010).
Truncated questions like (46c) were added to exclude the possibility that children always
provide a yes/no answer to questions without an overt wh-phrase: If it can be shown thatchildren interpret questions with a null object like (46b) as a yes/no question despite the factthat they interpret truncated questions like (46c) as a wh-question, then this would allow us toconclude that children do not rely on a strategy which determines the interpretation of aquestion based on the presence or the absence of a wh-phrase.
The experiment consisted of two trials with a wh-question as in (46a), two trials with anull-object question as in (46b), and two trials with a truncated question as in (46c). The orderof presentation was pseudo-randomized.
8.3. Results and Discussion
The results are summarized in Table 5. Except for the responses from a single child(4;04), all the answers to null-object questions were yes/no answers (more specifically, yesanswers). In contrast, virtually all the answers to truncated questions were short answers suchas “A train”, which suggests that children interpreted these sentences as wh-questions. Thisfinding suggests that Japanese-speaking children do not have a strategy to interpret questions
without a wh-phrase as yes/no questions. The sharp contrast between responses to questions
involving a null object and responses to truncated questions suggests that children do not-436- 436 -Argument Ellipsis in Acquisition (K. Sugisaki)

interpret null-object questions as object wh-questions. Thus, the obtained results clearly
indicate that Japanese-speaking preschool children already have the knowledge that whphrases are not allowed to undergo Argument Ellipsis.

Interpreted asa wh-question

Interpreted asa yes/no question

Wh-questions as in (46a)

100% (32/32)

0% (0/32)

Questions with a null object as in (46b)6.25% (2/32)

93.75% (30/32)

Truncated questions as in (46c)

96.88% (31/32)

0% (0/32)

Table 5: Summary of the Results of Experiment 4
9. Concluding Remarks
This study reported results of four experiments to demonstrate that Japanese-speaking
preschool children have fully adult-like knowledge of Argument Ellipsis. The results ofExperiment 1 and 2 revealed that children permit sloppy-identity interpretation both for null
objects and for null subjects. Experiment 3 verified that the source of this interpretation isindeed knowledge of Argument Ellipsis (and not the knowledge that any phrase can beelided), by showing that children are also adult-like in disallowing the ellipsis of adjuncts. In
light of the observation that (Japanese-type) scrambling and agreement are acquired at least
before the age of three, these findings lend support to the fundamental part of the parametricproposals by Oku (1998), Saito (2007), and Takahashi (2008) that the availability of
Argument Ellipsis in Japanese is closely tied to other prominent characteristics of thislanguage, such as scrambling or the absence of overt agreement.
Experiment 4 focused on the constraint that Argument Ellipsis does not apply to whphrases, which immediately follows from the anti-agreement approach. The results of thisexperiment, combined with the results of Experiment 1-3, suggest that not only theknowledge about Argument Ellipsis but also the knowledge about its constraints are inchildren’s grammar from the earliest observable stages. These findings are consistent with theview that the availability of Argument Ellipsis and its constraints directly follow from theprinciples and parameters of UG, which in turn demonstrates that the acquisition of Argument
Ellipsis is a very fruitful area to deepen our understanding about the nature of innate language
faculty.

References
Boersma, P. and D. Weenink (2010) “Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer.” [Computer program].
Version 5.2.05, retrieved 15 November 2010 from http://www.praat.org/
Bokovi , . and D. Takahashi (1998) “Scrambling and Last Resort,” Linguistic Inquiry 29, 347–366.

-437- 437 -

2008

2012







Clahsen, H. and M. Penke. (1992) “The Acquisition of Agreement Morphology and its Syntactic
Consequences,” In J. Meisel, ed., The Acquisition of Verb Placement. Functional Categories
and V2 Phenomena in Language Acquisition, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,
181–223.
Chomsky, N. (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework.” In R. Martin, D. Michaels and J.
Uriagereka, eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 89–155.
Crain, S. and R. Thornton. (1998) Investigations in Universal Grammar: A Guide to Experiments on
the Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Funakoshi, K. (2012) “On Headless XP-Movement/Ellipsis,” Linguistic Inquiry 43, 519-562.
Guasti, M. T. (1994) “Verb Syntax in Italian Child Grammar: Finite and Nonfinite Verbs,” Language
Acquisition 3, 1–40.
Hagstrom. P. (1998) Decomposing Questions, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Hoji, H. (1998) “Null Object and Sloppy Identity in Japanese,” Linguistic Inquiry 29, 127–152.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1991) “Remarks on the Status of the Null Object.” In R. Freidin, ed., Principles andParameters in Comparative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 56–76.
Hyams, N. (2002) “Clausal Structure in Child Greek: A Reply to Varlokosta, Vainilla and Rohbacher
and a Reanalysis,” The Linguistic Review 19, 225–269.
Ikawa, H. (in press) “What the Ineligibility of Wh-phrases for Argument Ellipsis Tells Us: On theInertness of Phonetically Null Elements. Online Proceedings of GLOW in Asia 2012.
Kim, S.-W. (1999) “Sloppy/Strict Identity, Empty Objects, and NP Ellipsis,” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 8, 255–284.
Kitahara, H. (2011) “A Preliminary Study of Argument Ellipsis and Anaphor Binding in Japanese,”
Reports of the Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies 42, 245–263.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988) “Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English and Japanese,”
Linguisticae Investigationes 12, 1–47.
Matsuo, A. (2007) “Differing Interpretations of Empty Categories in English and Japanese VP Ellipsis
Contexts,” Language Acquisition 14, 3–29.
Murasugi, K. and T. Kawamura. (2005) “On the Acquisition of Scrambling in Japanese,” In J. Sabel
and M. Saito, eds., The Free Word Order Phenomenon: Its Syntactic Sources and Diversity,
Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 221–242.
Oku, S. (1998) “LF Copy Analysis of Japanese Null Arguments,” Proceedings of CLS 34, 299-314.
Otaki, K. (2012) “Argument Ellipsis Arising from Non-fusional Case Morphology,” Online
Proceedings of GLOW in Asia Workshop for Young Scholars 2011, 247–261.
Otaki, K., K. Sugisaki, N. Yusa, and M. Koizumi. (in press) “The Parameter of Argument Ellipsis:
The View from Kaqchikel,” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics: Studies in Kaqchikel
Grammar. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, Mass.
Otaki, K, and N. Yusa. (2012) “Quantificational Null Objects in Child Japanese,” Proceedings of theFifth Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics (FAJL 5), 217–230.
Otani, K. and J. Whitman. (1991) “V-raising and VP-ellipsis,” Linguistic Inquiry 22, 345–358.
Otsu, Y. (1994) “Early Acquisition of Scrambling in Japanese,” In T. Hoekstra and B. D. Schwartz
eds., Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar, John Benjamins, Amsterdam,
253–264.
Pizutto, E. and M. C. Caselli. (1992) “The Acquisition of Italian Morphology: Implications for
Models of Language Development,” Journal of Child Language 19, 491–558.
Saito, M. (2003) “On the Role of Selection in the Application of Merge,” Proceedings of NELS 33,
323–345.
Saito, M. (2007) “Notes on East Asian Argument Ellipsis,” Language Research 43, 203–227.

-438- 438 -Argument Ellipsis in Acquisition (K. Sugisaki)

Saito, M. and D.-H. An. (2010) “A Comparative Syntax of Ellipsis in Japanese and Korean,” The
Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 6), 287–307.
Sano, T. (2007) “Early Acquisition of Copy & Movement in a Japanese OSV Sentence,” A
Supplement to the Proceedings of the 31st Annual Boston University Conference on
Language Development (BUCLD31), http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/BUCLD/supp31.html
Sato, Y. (2012) “Argument Ellipsis in Javanese and the Definiteness Restriction on Subjects at the
Syntax-Information Structure Interface,” lingbuzz/001452.
ener, S. and D. Takahashi. (2010) “Argument Ellipsis in Japanese and Turkish,” The Proceedings of
the Sixth Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 6), 325–339.
Simpson, A., A. Choudhury, and M. Menon. (under review) “Argument ellipsis and the licensing of
covert nominals in Bangla, Hindi and Malayalam.”
Sugisaki, K. (2007) “The Configurationality Parameter in the Minimalist Program: A View fromChild Japanese,” Proceedings of the 31st Annual Boston University Conference on
Language Development (BUCLD 31), 597–608.
Sugisaki, K. (2012) “A Constraint on Argument Ellipsis in child Japanese,” Proceedings of the 36th
Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD36), 555–567.
Sugisaki, K. (in press) “The Ban on Adjunct Ellipsis in Child Japanese,” Proceedings of the 37th
Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD37).
Takahashi, D. (2007) “Argument Ellipsis from a Crosslinguistic Perspective: An Interim Report,”
paper presented at GLOW in Asia 6, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Takahashi, D. (2008) Noun Phrase Ellipsis. In S. Miyagawa and M. Saito eds., The Oxford Handbookof Japanese Linguistics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 394–422.
Torrens, V. (1992) “The Acquisition of Inflection in Catalan and Spanish,” a talk given at
Psycholinguistics Lab, UCLA.
Watanabe, A. (1992) “Subjacency and S-structure Movement of Wh-in-situ,” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 1, 255–291.

-439- 439 -ARGUMENT ELLIPSIS IN JAPANESE AND MALAYALAM *Daiko Takahashi
Tohoku University

In recent years, evidence has been mounting for the hypothesis that null arguments inseveral languages represented most notably by Japanese are derived by ellipsis rather thaninvolve empty pronouns (see Kim 1999, Oku 1998, Saito 2004, and Takahashi 2008a, among
others). This article subjects Malayalam, a null argument language like Japanese, to close
scrutiny, and considers whether its null arguments can arise through ellipsis, pointing out
similarities and differences between the two languages in terms of the availability of elliptic
null elements. It will turn out that while Malayalam largely behaves like Japanese, it exhibitsa few very intriguing divergences, posing a new explicandum to the cross-linguistic study ofellipsis.
1.

Argument Ellipsis in Japanese

Before considering data in Malayalam, let us take a brief look at the examples that have
led to the ellipsis analysis of null arguments (or just the argument ellipsis analysis) inJapanese. Cases like the following are used to show the possibility of object ellipsis in thelanguage (e stands for a null element):(1)

a. Taro-wa zibun-no hahaoya-oTaro-TOP self-gen mother-ACC

aisiteiru.
love‘Taro loves his mother.’* I would like to express my gratitude to Mamoru Saito for giving me the opportunity to conduct the

research that has led to this article, and to R. Amritavalli, Rahul Balusu, K. A. Jayaseelan, and B. R.
Srivatsa for providing me with valuable information about Dravidian languages. Part of the material
reported here was presented at the Center for Linguistics, Nanzan University in March, 2011, and I am
grateful to the audience for their comments and questions. If any inadequacies remain, I am solely
responsible for them. This research has been supported in part by the International Collaborative
Research Project on Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition at the Center for Linguistics,
Nanzan University and by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (Grant Number 21520392).
The following abbreviations are used here: ACC for accusative case; COMP for complementizer;
EMPH for the emphatic marker; GEN for genitive case; LOC for the locative marker; MSG for
masculine singular; NEG for negation; NMNL for the nominalizer; NOM for nominative case; PERF
for perfective; Q for the question marker; REFL for the reflexive morpheme; and TOP for the topic
marker.

-441-

2008

2012

b. Hana-wa
Hana-tope



nikundeiru.
hate‘lit. Hana hates e.’c. Hana-wa
Hana-TOPkanozyo-o
her-ACC

nikundeiru.
hate‘Hana hates her.’
As noted by Otani and Whitman (1991), null objects in Japanese permit sloppy interpretation.
Thus, if anteceded by (1a), the null object construction in (1b) is ambiguous between thestrict reading that Hana hates Taro’s mother and the sloppy reading that Hana hates her own
mother. The availability of the second construal is particularly important. The sentence in (1c)is minimally different from (1b) in containing a pronoun in the object position. If it is used inplace of (1b) in the same context, it only has the strict reading. If the null object in (1b) werea pronoun, the example should be expected to be limited to the strict interpretation just like(1c). To account for the sloppy construal in (1b), proponents of the ellipsis analysis assume
that the sentence so construed involves ellipsis, as shown below (strike-through indicatesellipsis):(2)

Hana-wa
Hana-TOP

zibun-no hahaoya-oself-GEN mother-ACC

nikundeiru
hate‘lit. Hana hates self’s mother’
It is assumed here that the sentence underlyingly has a full-fledged object, which is elided
under identity with the object in the antecedent sentence to yield the null object construction.1
Null subjects behave similarly, as observed by Oku (1998). Consider the following
examples:(3)

a. Taro-wa [CP zibun-no
Taro-TOP
self-GENhahaoya-ga eigo-ohanasu to] omotteiru.
mother-NOM English-ACC speak that think‘Taro thinks that his mother speaks English.’b. Hana-wa [CP e furansugo-o
Hana-TOP
French-ACC

hanasu to] omotteiru.
speak that think‘lit. Hana thinks that e speaks French.’
The subject of the embedded clause in (3b) is null. When (3b) is preceded by (3a), it isambiguous between the strict and the sloppy interpretation. The possibility of the latter
construal has been taken by the advocates of the ellipsis analysis to be evidence that the null
1

See Takahashi (2008b) and Takita (2011) for further arguments in favor of the ellipsis analysis ofnull objects.

-442- 442 -Argument Ellipsis in Japanese and Malayalam (D. Takahashi)

subject is derived by ellipsis.
The sort of ellipsis considered here is not limited to nominal arguments. As Takahashi(2008a) observes, for instance, selected PPs are amenable to ellipsis.2(4)

a. Taro to
Hana-ga [PP otagai
Taro and Hana-NOM
each.otherkara] tegami-o moratta.
from letter-ACC received‘Taro and Hana received letters from each other.’b. Ken to
Yumi-wa
Ken and Yumi-TOP

ePP

meeru-omoratta.
e-mail-ACC received‘lit. Ken and Yumi received e-mails.’
Though the source PP is implicit in (4b), it is understood and significantly yields the sloppy
interpretation that Ken and Yumi received e-mails from each other.
The term argument ellipsis is so coined in part to highlight the fact, first pointed out by
Oku (1998), that ellipsis cannot apply to adjuncts. This is illustrated by the following data:(5)a. Taro-wa subayaku sonothat
Taro-TOP quickly

mondai-o
toita.
problem-ACC solved‘Taro solved that problem quickly.’b. Hana-wa
Hana-TOPkono mondai-o
thisproblem-ACC

tokanakatta.
not.solved‘Hana did not solve this problem.’c. Hana-wa
Hana-TOP

subayaku kono mondai-otokanakatta.
quickly
this
problem-ACC not.solved‘Hana did not solve this problem quickly.’d. Hana-wa
Hana-TOP

tokanakatta.
not.solved‘lit. Hana did not solve.’e. Hana-wa
Hana-TOP

subayaku sonoquickly
thatmondai-otokanakatta.
problem-ACC not.solved‘Hana did not solve that problem quickly.’
The sentence in (5a) contains the manner adverb subayaku ‘quickly’ and is intended to serve
2

Takahashi (2008a) also notes that selected CPs can be elided.

-443- 443 -

2008

2012







as the antecedent for (5b), where the adverb is missing. The fact here is that while (5b) meansthat Hana did not solve this problem, it does not mean that Hana did not solve this problem
quickly: namely, the adverb is not understood in the interpretation of (5b). If it were, thesentence could be construed in the same way as (5c), where the adverb is explicitly expressed.
Clearly, (5b) lacks the reading that Hana solved this problem, but not in a quick manner,which is available in (5c). Therefore, (5b) cannot be analyzed as below:(6)

Hana-wa subayaku kono mondai-otokanakatta
Hana-TOP quickly
thisproblem-ACC not.solved‘Hana did not solve this problem quickly’

Here the adverb is intended to be present in the sentence but elided under identity with theadverb in (5a). If (5b) could be analyzed as in (6), it should yield the same interpretation as(5c). Because (5b) cannot be interpreted like (5c), the analysis in (6) should not be allowed,
and this follows if adjuncts cannot undergo ellipsis.3
The situation does not change even if the object is suppressed from (5b), as in (5d). If(5d) is anteceded by (5a), it can mean that Hana did not solve that problem, but crucially, itcannot mean that Hana did not solve that problem quickly. That is, (5d) cannot be interpreted
like (5e), where the adverb as well as the object is explicitly repeated. The fact that the adverb
is not understood in (5d) reinforces the assumption that adjuncts are not subject to ellipsis.4
The argument ellipsis analysis gives rise to a very important issue in the cross-linguistic
research on null arguments. Once it is established that Japanese allows elliptic arguments, animmediate question to be asked is whether null arguments in other languages can be analyzed
in the same way. In this regard, Oku (1998) considers the following data from Spanish,observing that null subjects in the language are not amenable to the ellipsis analysis:(7)

a. María creeque su propuesta será
aceptada.
Maria believes that her proposal will-be accepted‘Maria believes that her proposal will be accepted.’b. Juan también creeque eJuan also
believes that

será
it

aceptada.
will-be accepted‘Juan also believes that it will be accepted.’3

As to why adjuncts cannot be elided, see Oku (1998) and Takahashi (forthcoming).

4

Of course, adjuncts can be elided if they are contained in constituents that are eligible for ellipsis.
For example, in John solved the problem quickly, but Mary didn’t, the second sentence can mean that
Mary didn’t solve the problem quickly. In this case, the adverb is elided along with the other VPinternal elements by VP-ellipsis. What is argued in the text is that adjuncts themselves cannot undergo
ellipsis.

-444- 444 -Argument Ellipsis in Japanese and Malayalam (D. Takahashi)

Preceded by (7a), (7b) can mean that Juan believes that María’s proposal will be accepted, butcannot have the reading that Juan believes that Juan’s proposal will be accepted. Namely, thenull subject in (7b) is not interpreted sloppily. This is in accordance with the standard view inthe literature that null subjects in Spanish are empty pronouns: as noted above with regard to(1c), pronouns usually do not give rise to sloppy interpretation. If the null subject in (7b) were
elliptic, it should yield the sloppy reading.
One should wonder what prevents the null subject in (7b) from being derived by ellipsis.
Following Saito (2007) and Takahashi (forthcoming), I assume that agreement plays animportant role in regulating the occurrence of elliptic arguments. Let us consider thefollowing schematic representation of argument ellipsis:(8)a. ... F1{} ... DP{, Case} ...
b. ... F1{} ... DP{, Case} ...
c. ... F2{} ... __ ...
d. * ... F2{} ... DP{, Case} ...

The derivation of the antecedent sentence is illustrated in (8a-b), where an argument,
indicated as DP, is associated with a functional head (F1): if DP is a subject, F1 is T; if DP isan object, F1 is v. Let us assume Chomsky’s (2000) theory of agreement here. Being
uninterpretable, the -features of F1 must be erased by entering into an agreement relation
with the -features of DP. The Case-feature of DP plays a crucial role here, making DP active
or visible for the operation. Once the agreement relation is established, the -features of F1
and the Case-feature of DP, both uninterpretable, are erased as shown in (8b). Suppose now
that it is followed by the elliptic sentence, the derivation of which is given in (8c-d). Saito(2007) assumes with Williams (1977) and others that ellipsis involves copying. Thus, theelliptic sentence starts off with an unfilled argument position, as shown by the underline in(8c), and it is subsequently (namely, in the covert component) filled with the argument copiedfrom (8b), resulting in (8d). Now, a problem arises in (8d): the Case-feature of the copied DP
is already erased in the antecedent sentence prior to copying, and hence it is not eligible tohave an agreement relation with F2. Consequently, the -features of F2 remain to be erased,causing the derivation to crash.
This theory predicts that argument ellipsis should not be allowed in languages where
functional heads such as T and v agree with arguments. This is borne out in Spanish, as noted
above. It has (rich) agreement between subjects and T, and null subjects there cannot be
elliptic. On the other hand, agreement is completely absent in Japanese. If this is taken to
indicate that the relevant functional heads simply lack -features in the language, the sort ofderivational crash noted in (8) should never happen there, so that argument ellipsis can be-445- 445 -

2008

2012









permitted rather freely.5
Bearing these in mind, let us turn our attention to Malayalam in the next section todetermine whether its null arguments can arise through ellipsis or not.
2.

Data in MalayalamFirst of all, let us confirm that Malayalam is a language like Japanese where arguments
such as subjects and objects can drop in finite clauses (the Malayalam data in what follows
are supplied by K. A. Jayaseelan (personal communication) unless indicated otherwise).
(9)a. John ewiDe (pooyi)?
John where (went)‘Where did John go?’b. e wiiTT-il-eek’k’ pooyi.
house-LOC-DAT went
‘He went home.’(10)a. MaryMary

entin
why

aaN karayunn-at?
iscry-NMNL‘Why is it that Mary is crying?’
b. John e s’akaar’icc-at
Johnscold-NMNL

kaaraNam.
because‘Because John scolded her.’
The sentences in (9b) and (10b) are intended to be replies to the questions in (9a) and (10a),respectively. In (9b), the subject is unexpressed, but it can be understood to refer to thesubject in (9a). In (10b), the object is suppressed though it can be easily identified as referringto the subject in (10a).
2.1. Object Ellipsis in Malayalam
Let us consider whether null arguments can be elliptic in Malayalam. Let us start withthe following examples with null objects:(11)

a. John tan-te
amma-yesneehik’k’unnu.
John self-GEN mother-ACC love
‘John loves his mother.’5

See Saito (2007) and Takahashi (forthcoming) for discussions related to argument ellipsis andagreement, and Kuroda (1988) and Fukui (1988) for arguments that Japanese lacks agreement.

-446- 446 -Argument Ellipsis in Japanese and Malayalam (D. Takahashi)b. Bill-um e
Bill-alsosneehik’k’unnu.
love‘lit. Bill loves e, too.’
The antecedent sentence in (11a) contains a reflexive in the object and it refers to the subject
John in the same sentence. (11b) is a null object construction. If preceded by (11a), it canmean either that Bill loves John’s mother or that Bill loves his own mother. That is, the null
object is ambiguous between the strict and the sloppy interpretation. The possibility of thelatter construal indicates that the null object can arise through ellipsis.
This can be buttressed by the following data:(12)

a. aar
whoaaN tann-e
tanne
isself-ACC EMPH

wimars’icc-at?
criticized-NMNL‘Who is it that criticized himself?’
b. John e wimars’iccu
Johncriticized‘lit. John criticized e.’
The sentence in (12a) is a wh-question, where the reflexive itself is the object of the verb
corresponding to criticized. As a reply to (12a), (12b) is used and contains a null object. In
this context, (12b) most naturally means that John criticized himself. Note that this fact
clearly indicates that argument ellipsis is operative here. The argument ellipsis analysis deals
with the data as follows (just for convenience, the Malayalam data are illustrated with English
words and word order):(13)a. Who is it that criticized self?
b. John criticized self.

Since the second sentence contains the reflexive in the object position, its actual interpretationis straightforwardly captured. If, on the other hand, null arguments were restricted to empty
pronouns in the language, the data would have to be analyzed as below:(14)

a. Who is it that criticized self?
b. * John1 criticized pro1

In (14b), the null object is analyzed as an empty pronoun, which should be coindexed withthe subject to produce the interpretation of the sentence. But the representation should violate
Condition (B) of the Binding Theory (Chomsky 1981) just like *John1 loves him1, and would
be ruled out erroneously. This consideration, therefore, provides a rather strong argument for-447- 447 -20122008





the availability of argument ellipsis for null objects in Malayalam.6
Note also that the sloppy interpretation in question can be obtained even whenantecedent and elliptic sentences have different verbs, as below:(15)

a. John tan-tebhaarya-ye sneehik’k’unnu.
loveJohn self-GEN wife-ACC‘John loves his wife.’b. pakSe Bill
but
Bill

e

weRukk’unnu.
hate‘lit. But Bill hates e.’
Whereas the antecedent sentence in (15a) has the verb corresponding to love, the null object
sentence in (15b) has the verb corresponding to hate. (15b) can have the sloppy reading that
Bill hates his own wife, in addition to the strict reading that Bill hates John’s wife. The
possibility of the first construal indicates that the object can be elliptic.
The observation above is important in showing that elliptic null objects in Malayalam
6

Kannada, another Dravidian language that allows null arguments, displays an interesting set of data.
The following examples are supplied by R. Amritavalli (personal communication):
(i)

a.

John
John

tann-aself-GEN

heNDati-yannu priitisuttaane.
wife-ACC
loves‘John loves his wife.’b.

Bill-uu
Bill-alsoe priitisuttanne.
loves‘lit. Bill loves e, too.’(ii) a.

yaaru
whotann-ann-ee
self-ACC-EMPH

baidu-koND-anu?
cursed-REFL-3MSG‘Who cursed himself?’b. * JohnJohnebaidu-koND-anu.
cursed-REFL-3MSG‘lit. John cursed e.’
The examples in (i) are comparable to the Malayalam data in (11). Anteceded by (ia), (ib) can havethe sloppy reading. This shows that Kannada allows object ellipsis, too. There is a complication,
however, if we consider the Kannada counterpart of (12), which is given in (ii). The null object
construction in (iib) is just ungrammatical, in contrast with (12b). Notice that unlike Malayalam,Kannada must have the reflexive morpheme on the verb if the reflexive pronoun appears in the object
position, as shown in (iia). I suspect that this morphology is a kind of object agreement, which blocks
ellipsis of the object in (iib).

-448- 448 -Argument Ellipsis in Japanese and Malayalam (D. Takahashi)

can arise through argument ellipsis (or ellipsis of objects) rather than through so-called Vstranding VP-ellipsis (Goldberg 2005, McCloskey 1991, and Otani and Whitman 1991).
Based on her detailed analysis of the null object construction in Hebrew, Goldberg (2005)
contends that V-stranding VP-ellipsis is operative in the language. Consider the following
examples in Hebrew, cited from Goldberg 2005:(16)

a. (Ha’im)(Q

MiryamMiryamhevi’abrought

et
ACC

Dvora
Dvora

la-xanut?
to.the-store‘(Did) Miryam bring Dvora to the store?’b. Ziroo, hi hevi’a.
yes
she brought‘lit. Yes, she brought.’
c. *Ziroo,yes

hi lakxa.
she took‘lit. Yes, she took.’d. * Lo,nohi ALXA!
she sent‘lit. No, she SENT!’
The question in (16a) serves as the antecedent for each of the sentences in (16b-d). Although
truncated, (16b) can mean that she brought Dvora to the store. Goldberg argues that it
involves VP-ellipsis with concomitant V-raising, as shown below (English words are usedjust for expository purposes):(17)[TP she [T’ [T brought-T] [VP tV Dvora to the store]]]The main verb undergoes movement to T, and subsequently ellipsis applies to elide VP,
which contains the verbal trace (or copy), the object, and the locative PP. The
ungrammaticality of (16c-d) indicates that the kind of VP-ellipsis illustrated in (17) cannot
take place there. Goldberg argues that V-stranding VP-ellipsis (or VP-ellipsis in general) isconstrained by the requirement that the antecedent clause and the elliptic clause share thesame verb. Since the verbs in (16c-d) are different from the verb in (16a), VP-ellipsis cannot
apply to the sentences (see Goldberg 2005 for details).
Returning to (15), we notice that the antecedent and the elliptic sentence have different
verbs. If the same verb requirement is a universal constraint, (15b) should not be able toinvolve VP-ellipsis. Then, the elliptic null object there must arise through ellipsis of theobject itself, namely through argument ellipsis.

-449- 449 -

2008

2012









2.2. Subject Ellipsis in Malayalam
Let us go on to examine whether null subjects can be elliptic in Malayalam. The
following are relevant data:(18)

a. JohnJohn

paRaññu [tan-te
kuTTi
said
[self-GEN child

EnglishEnglishsamsaarik’k’um enn].
will.speak
COMP‘John said that his child would speak English.’b. MaryMary

paRaññu
said[e French samsaarik’k’um enn].
COMP
French will.speak‘lit. Mary said that e would speak French.’(19)

a. John paRaññu [tan-te
makan Microsoft-il jooli ceyy’unnu enn]Microsoft-in job do
COMPJohn said[self-GEN son‘John said that his son was working at Microsoft.’b. BillBill

paRaññu [e IBM-il
said
IBM-injooli
job

ceyy’unnu
do

enn]
COMP

‘lit. Bill said that e was working at IBM.’
The examples in (18a) and (19a) are intended to serve as the antecedents for (18b) and (19b),
respectively. While the embedded subjects contain the reflexive in the a-examples, theembedded subjects are null in the b-examples. The fact here is that (18b) and (19b) can beinterpreted neither strictly nor sloppily. The only interpretations available are the ones where
the null embedded subjects refer to the matrix subjects: thus, (18b) and (19b) only mean that
Mary said that she (namely, Mary) would speak French and that Bill said that he (namely,Bill) was working at IBM, respectively. In particular, the impossibility of the sloppy readings
indicates that null subjects cannot arise through ellipsis in Malayalam.7

7

The absence of the strict readings in (18) and (19) also demands an explanation. It seems that nullsubjects in Malayalam are quite different from their Japanese counterparts (see (3)) and are rather
similar to null subjects in Chinese and Portuguese. For instance, consider the following example in
Chinese, cited from Huang (1984):(i)

Zhangsan shuo [e bu renshi Lisi].
Zhangsan say
not know Lisi
‘lit. Zhangsan said that e did not know Lisi.’

The most natural interpretation of this example is the one where the null embedded subject is boundby the matrix subject. (i) can be contrasted with the following comparable example in Japanese:-450- 450 -Argument Ellipsis in Japanese and Malayalam (D. Takahashi)

A word of caution is necessary here. The following data are minimally different from(18) in the form of the embedded subject in the antecedent sentence, but appear to allow thesloppy reading for (20b):(20)

a. JohnJohn

paRaññu
said[taan English[self English

samsaarik’k’um enn]COMP
will.speak‘John said that he would speak English.’b. MaryMary

paRaññu [e French samsaarik’k’um enn]
COMP
said
French will.speak‘lit. Mary said that e would speak French.’
While (20a) means that John said that he (namely, John) would speak English, (20b) meansthat Mary said that she (namely, Mary) would speak French. The sloppy reading here ismerely apparent because it can arise from binding of the null embedded subject by the matrix
subject and can be obtained even when (20b) is used out of the blue without an antecedent
like (20a) (see note 7). Therefore, one should not be misled by cases like (20).
We have arrived at the generalization that null subjects in Malayalam do not yieldsloppy readings. This shows that subjects cannot be subject to argument ellipsis in thelanguage. Why is Malayalam different from Japanese in this respect? Exactly like Japanese,
Malayalam lacks agreement between arguments and functional heads: that is, it lacks
agreement between subjects/objects and predicates (see Asher and Kumari 1997). Then it
would be expected to behave like Japanese, allowing ellipsis of subjects as well as objects.
Now I argue that Malayalam does possess agreement, albeit abstract, between subjects
and T. In Takahashi forthcoming, I point out that Chinese disallows subject ellipsis, andaccount for it by assuming that the language has agreement, though covert, between subjects
and T. The following are relevant data:(21)

a. Zhangsan
Zhangsanshuo [zijisay [selfde haizi xihuan Xiaohong].
of child like
Xiaohong‘Zhangsan said his child liked Xiaohong.’(ii) Taro-ga [e Hana-ositteiru to] itta.
Taro-NOM Hana-ACC know that said
‘lit. Taro said that e knew Hana.’
Although the reading where the null embedded subject refers to the matrix subject is possible, anotherinterpretation where it refers to someone else is equally permissible, albeit depending on the presenceof a preceding context providing such a referent. Null subjects in Malayalam may be analyzed in thesame way as their Chinese counterparts à la Huang (1984) (namely, as locally controlled pros, theexact identification of which is open to debate).

-451- 451 -2008

b. Lisi
Lisi

2012

shuo
say







[e xihuan Xiaoli].
like
Xiaoli‘lit. Lisi said e liked Xiaoli.’
Anteceded by (21a), (21b) does not permit the sloppy interpretation that Lisi said that Lisi’schild liked Xiaoli. This shows that subjects cannot be elided in Chinese.
Following Miyagawa (2010), Takahashi (forthcoming) regards the presence of the socalled blocking effect on long-distance anaphor binding as an indication of subject agreementin the language. It is known that the reflexive ziji ‘self’ can be bound long-distance, as shown
below (the examples in (22) and (23) are taken from Miyagawa 2010, where they are
attributed to Pan 2000):(22)

Zhangsan zhidao [LisiZhangsan know [Lisiduitoziji mei xinxin].
self not confidence‘lit. Zhangsan knows Lisi has no confidence in self.’
The reflexive in the embedded clause may be bound either by the embedded subject Lisi or by
the matrix subject Zhangsan. The long-distance construal, however, is blocked if theintervening subject is changed to the first person or second person pronoun, as below:(23)

Zhangsan juede
Zhangsan think[wo/ni dui[I/you toziji mei xinxin].
self not confidence‘lit. Zhangsan thinks I/you have no confidence in self.’
Here the reflexive is only bound by the embedded subject. This fact is understood as follows:
suppose that ziji undergoes LF movement to T, where it establishes a local relation with its
antecedent in the specifier position of TP (Battistella 1989, Cole, Hermon, and Sung 1990,
and so on), and that when remotely bound, it undergoes successive cyclic T-to-T movement.
Suppose also that the reflexive receives the value of the person feature from the T head that it
attaches to first. When (22) has the long-distance interpretation, for example, ziji first moves
to the embedded T, which assigns it the value [3rd person], and then to the matrix T to have a
local relation with the intended antecedent. The person values of the reflexive and its final
landing site (the matrix T) match, both being [3rd]. On the other hand, if the reflexive were to
be bound by the matrix subject in (23), it would move first to the embedded T to receive thevalue [1st (or 2nd)] before landing at the matrix T. In this case, the person value of thereflexive, which is [1st] or [2nd], would not match that of the matrix T, which is [3rd], so thatthe resulting representation should be ruled out. Note that this explanation presupposes that
Chinese possesses agreement between subjects and T so that T can take on the -feature
value of the subjects.
In contrast, Japanese does not exhibit the blocking effect in question. Miyagawa (2010)
points out an example of the following sort, noting that there is no blocking effect:-452- 452 -Argument Ellipsis in Japanese and Malayalam (D. Takahashi)(24)

Taro-wa
Taro-TOP[boku/kimi-ga[I/you-NOM

zibun-noself-GENsyasin-o
totta
picture-ACC took

to] itta.
that] said

‘lit. Taro said that I/you took self’s picture.’
Here, the reflexive zibun may take the matrix subject Taro as its antecedent though theintervening subject is the first or second person pronoun. This is consistent with theassumption that agreement between subjects and T is absent in Japanese and hence that
subjects can undergo argument ellipsis there.8
Returning to Malayalam, we expect it to exhibit the blocking effect just like Chinese.
This is indeed borne out, as shown by the following examples:(25)

a. JohnJohnwicaarik’k’unnu
think

[Bill
[Bill

tann-eself-ACC

weRukk’unnu enn].
hate
comp

‘lit. John thinks that Bill hates self.’b. *JohnJohnwicaarik’k’unnu
think[ñaan/nii[I/youtann-eweRukk’unnu enn]
self-ACC hateCOMP

‘lit. John thinks that I/you hate self.’
In (25a), the reflexive in the embedded object position can take the matrix subject as its
antecedent. This relation is blocked in (25b), where the embedded subject is changed fromBill to the first or second person pronoun (see Jayaseelan 1997 for more on this topic). In thisrespect, Malayalam is grouped with Chinese, rather than with Japanese.
Further considerations that suggest the presence of (abstract) subject-T agreement in
Malayalam come from the fact that Dravidian languages usually exhibit subject-T agreement.
As shown below, Kannada, Tamil, and Telugu all possess visible agreement between subjects
and predicates:(26)

Kannadaa. nannu mathanadutthneI
speak
b. naavu mathanaduthheve
wespeak
c. avanu mathanadutthaiddhanehespeaks8

In that case, the reflexive in Japanese must be licensed in a different way from its Chinesecounterpart. At least, its licensing should not involve -feature valuation.

-453- 453 -

2008

(27)

2012









Tamil
a. naan pesukirenI
speak
b. naangal pesukirom
wespeak
c. avan pesukiraan
hespeaks(28)

Telugua. nenu matladutaanu
I
speak
b. memu matladutamu
wespeak
c. atanu matladutadu
hespeaksAlthough Malayalam does not exhibit agreement superficially (Asher and Kumari 1997), we
may assume that the language still retains it in an abstract way, its presence being detectablewith such syntactic phenomena as the blocking effect on reflexive binding and theimpossibility of subject ellipsis.
To summarize, I have shown in this section that Malayalam is similar to Japanese inpermitting ellipsis of objects but is different from it in disallowing ellipsis of subjects. Thisputs Malayalam in the same group as Chinese and Turkish, which also exhibit the subjectobject asymmetry with respect to argument ellipsis (see Takahashi forthcoming).
3.

Ellipsis of Adjuncts in Malayalam

If argument ellipsis is responsible for elliptic null objects in Malayalam, adjuncts should
not be affected because argument ellipsis by definition is limited to arguments. Here we havea very intriguing array of facts. Let us begin with the following data:(29)

a. John nannaayi kaaR kazhuki.
John wellcarwashed‘John washed a car well.’b. Bill e kazhuki-(y)illa.
Bill
washed-NEG‘lit. Bill did not wash e.’-454- 454 -Argument Ellipsis in Japanese and Malayalam (D. Takahashi)(30)

a. nii innale
kaaTT-il aana-ye
kaNDu-oo?
you yesterday forest-LOC elephant-ACC saw-q‘Did you see elephants yesterday in the forest?’b. pro e kaNDu.
I
saw‘lit. I saw e.’

Anteceded by (29a), (29b) can mean that Bill did not wash a car well. Similarly, if (30b)is used after (30a), its interpretation can include the temporal and the locative adjunct (that is,
the sentence can mean that I saw elephants in the forest yesterday). This is to be contrasted
with the fact in Japanese observed in (5), where the adjunct is not understood in theinterpretation of the sentence comparable to (29b).
Note that the objects as well as the adjuncts are null in (29b) and (30b). Let us examine
whether ellipsis of adjuncts is contingent on ellipsis of objects or not. Relevant data areprovided below:(31)

a. ñaan kaal soopp-iTT kazhuki.
Ifeet soap-using washed‘I washed my feet with soap.’b. (pakSe) awan e kazhuki-(y)illa.
(but)hewashed-NEG‘lit. (But) he did not wash e.’c. awan
he

cevi
ear

kazhuki-(y)illa.
washed-NEG‘He did not wash his ears.’
The sentence in (31a) is intended to antecede (31b-c). (31b) is a null object construction, andjust as in (29b) and (30b), the adjunct in (31a) (the one corresponding to with soap) can beunderstood in its interpretation: that is, it can mean that he did not wash his feet with soap. Of
special importance is the interpretation of (31c), where the object is overtly expressed. The
sentence means that he did not wash his ears, but crucially does not mean that he did notwash his ears with soap: namely, its interpretation does not include the adjunct. Thus, the fact
here is that whereas the adjunct can be elided in the null object construction in (31b), it
cannot in (31c). Ellipsis of the adjunct is dependent on ellipsis of the object.
Another significant fact is obtained from the following data, where the antecedent andthe subsequent sentence have different verbs:-455- 455 -

2008

(32)

2012









a. John kaaR weegam kazhuki.
John carquicklywashed‘John washed a car quickly.’b. Bill e nannaakki-(y)illa.
Bill
repair-NEG‘lit. Bill did not repair e.’

Although (32b) is a null object construction, its interpretation does not include the adjunctcorresponding to quickly. The sentence means that Bill did not repair a car, but not that Bill
did not repair a car quickly. Comparing (32) with (29), (30), and (31a-b), we arrive at thegeneralization that adjunct ellipsis exhibits the same verb effect (recall the discussion about(16)).
Considering that ellipsis of adjuncts in Malayalam is contingent on null objects and issubject to the same verb requirement, we may assume that it does not involve ellipsis ofadjuncts per se but rather ellipsis of a larger constituent like VP that contains adjuncts as well
as objects. Given that the main verbs are overtly expressed in the relevant cases in (29b),(30b), and (31b), we are led to assume that they involve V-stranding VP-ellipsis (Goldberg
2005, McCloskey 1991, and Otani and Whitman 1991, among others). For example, (29) may
be analyzed as in (33), where English glosses are used for convenience:(33)

a. [TopP John1 well2 Topic [FocP car3 [Foc’ [Focus washedV][TP T [vP t1 v [VP t2[VP tV t3]]]]]]]
b. [FocP Bill4 [Foc’ [Foc not-washedV][TP T [NegP Neg [vP t4 v [VP well [VP tV car]]]]]]]

Following Mathew (2012), let us assume that verbs undergo raising to the head position of
Focus Phrase (FocP) in Malayalam.9 In (33a-b), the verbs move out of VP to the head
position of FocP via the intervening head positions including T, Neg (for (33b)), and v. In thelanguage, focused phrases appear in the position immediately preceding verbs, as shown by
the following examples cited from Jayaseelan 2001:(34)

a. ninn-e
aard
you-ACC who

aTiccu?
beat‘Who beat you?’b. * aard
who

ninn-eaTiccu?
you-ACC beat

9

Jayaseelan (2010) also argues that verbs are moved to some higher position in Malayalam, but for
him, the movement operation involved is not head movement of verbs but phrasal movement of an XP
containing them. This analysis is put aside here just because it is difficult to see how it can be
integrated with V-stranding VP-ellipsis.

-456- 456 -Argument Ellipsis in Japanese and Malayalam (D. Takahashi)

Wh-phrases are usually focused. Thus, the wh-phrase subject must appear immediately before
the verb in (34). Mathew (2012) accounts for this preverbal focus phenomenon by assumingthat while verbs move to the head position of FocP, focused elements occupy its specifier
position, as in (33). In (33a), the object (car) is understood to be focused, while the otherelements, namely the subject (John) and the adjunct (well), are assumed to be moved to thespecifier position (or adjoined position) of Topic Phrase (TopP). In (33b), the subject (Bill) isin the specifier position of FocP (or alternatively may be in TopP, depending on how it isinterpreted), but the object and the adjunct remain in VP, which is elided.10
The analysis along these lines leads to the expectation that Malayalam, an SOV
language, should allow some material to appear in post-verbal positions. This is actuallyattested. The following data are pointed out by Jayaseelan (2001):(35)

a. aarum kaND-illa,
nobody saw-NEG

aana-ye.
elephant-ACC‘Nobody saw the elephant.’
b. aard ayaccu,
who sent

ninn-e?
you-ACC‘Who sent you?’c. ñaan kaaNice-iTT-illa, Mary-k’k’ aa katt.
I
show-perf-NEG
Mary-DAT that letter‘I haven’t shown that letter to Mary.’d. innalemazha peytu,
yesterday rain
rainediwiDe.
here‘It rained here yesterday.’e. iwiDe mazha peytu,
here rain
rainedinnale.
yesterday‘It rained here yesterday.’In (35a-b), the direct objects appear post-verbally. In (35c), the dative argument and the direct
object occur after the verb. (35d-e) show that adjuncts can be placed in that position, too.
The considerations above suggest that Malayalam sentences where adjuncts are elided
can be analyzed in terms of V-stranding VP-ellipsis as illustrated in (33). The fact that theJapanese counterparts of the Malayalam examples in (29b), (30b), and (31b) do not allow the10

In (33), the antecedent VP contains the traces (or copies) of the object and the adjunct whereas theelided VP has those elements unmoved. This sort of VP-ellipsis is permitted, as can be seen in cases
like This book, John likes. — I’m sure his mother doesn’t.

-457- 457 -

2008

2012









construals where adjuncts are implicated means that V-stranding VP-ellipsis is not available
in Japanese. Kim (1999) and Oku (1998) independently argue for the absence of VP-ellipsis
in Japanese, and I just follow them (interested readers are referred to those references).11
4.

Concluding Remarks

I have considered data in Malayalam that contain null elements. I have shown that thelanguage is similar to Japanese in permitting object ellipsis but behaves differently withrespect to ellipsis of subjects and adjuncts. Malayalam is less permissible in the sense that it
does not allow subjects to be elliptic (thus, its null subjects must be pros or some empty
categories that need to be locally bound). I have argued that Malayalam has agreement, albeit
abstract, between subjects and T, which is responsible for the fact. The language is moretolerant in the sense that it allows adjuncts to be elided. I have argued that V-stranding VPellipsis is available in Malayalam and that apparent cases of adjunct ellipsis actually involve
VP-ellipsis. Then, the difference between Japanese and Malayalam in this respect boils down
to the absence or presence of V-stranding VP-ellipsis. Following Mathew (2012), I havesuggested that Malayalam possesses verb movement, which is a prerequisite for V-stranding
VP-ellipsis. On the other hand, there is no strong evidence for verb raising in Japanese, andthis is compatible with the line of analysis advocated in this article.
I wish to end with a few remarks about issues concerning the line of research conducted
here. First of all, while the data used here to examine the availability of argument ellipsis in
Malayalam, namely those pertaining to sloppy readings, are fairly clear, they should be
reinforced and confirmed by additional sets of data. In a bit to provide evidence for theargument ellipsis analysis in Japanese, Takahashi (2008b) considers null arguments
anteceded by quantifiers and Takita (2011) examines cases involving negative polarity items.

11

Unlike Malayalam, Japanese lacks the preverbal focus requirement. Thus, the Japanesecounterparts of (34a-b) are both grammatical:(i)a.

Kimi-oyou-ACC

dare-gatataita no?
who-NOM hit
Q‘Who hit you?’b.

Dare-ga kimi-o
who-NOM you-ACC

tataita no?
hit
QThis fact is compatible with the assumption that verbs do not undergo raising in Japanese at least in
the way they do in Malayalam. On the other hand, Japanese is similar to Malayalam in that although it
is also an SOV language, it sometimes allows non-verb final word order, which has been called theright dislocation construction in the literature (see Abe 1999, Takano forthcoming, and Tanaka 2001,
among others). The authors just mentioned propose analyses of the phenomenon in Japanese that are
totally different from the one in the text in terms of verb movement. Because I need to assume that theexistence of the right dislocation construction does not lead to verb raising in Japanese, their analyses
are consistent with my conjecture here.

-458- 458 -Argument Ellipsis in Japanese and Malayalam (D. Takahashi)

These tests should be applied to Malayalam, too.
A second issue has to do with the impossibility of subject ellipsis in Malayalam. To
account for that, I have suggested the hypothesis that the language has abstract agreement
between subjects and T. This needs to be elaborated further and, if possible, supplemented
with additional evidence. In 2.2 I motivated the hypothesis on the grounds that Malayalam
belongs to the Dravidian family, other members of which do possess visible agreement
between subjects and predicates. It might be that the agreement process in question in
Malayalam has been turning from visible to abstract and may be in the course of extinction.
This leads to the expectation that as the transition proceeds, the language should gradually
become tolerant of subject ellipsis, like Japanese. It is interesting and important, therefore, tokeep a close eye on null subjects in Malayalam.
Finally, when I considered elliptic null objects in Malayalam in 2.1, I concluded thatthey can arise through ellipsis of objects themselves. On the other hand, in section 3, where I
examined ellipsis of adjuncts, I argued that VP-ellipsis is operative in the language. Put
together, they mean that Malayalam has two ways to have elliptic objects: argument (orobject) ellipsis and VP-ellipsis. Then, it should offer a rare opportunity to study theinteraction of these two ellipsis processes in a single language, which, along with the othertopics, is left for future research.
Although some uncertainties and challenges remain, I believe that the present study willcontribute to a better understanding of the cross-linguistic distribution of elliptic arguments
and facilitate further research on the topic.

References
Abe, J. (1999) On directionality of movement: a case of Japanese right dislocation, ms., Nagoya
University.
Asher, R.-E. and T. C. Kumari (1997) Malayalam, Routledge, London, UK.
Battistella, E. (1989) “Chinese reflexivization: A movement to INFL approach,” Linguistics 27, 987–
1012.
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on government and binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, N. (2000) “Minimalist inquiries: the framework.” In R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J.
Uriagereka ed., Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, MIT
Press, Cambridge, Mass., 89–155.
Cole, P., G. Hermon, and L.-M. Sung (1990) “Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives,”
Linguistic Inquiry 21, 1–22.
Fukui, N. (1988) “Deriving the differences between English and Japanese: a case study in parametricsyntax,” English Linguistics 5, 249–270.
Goldberg, L.-M. (2005) Verb-stranding VP-ellipsis: a cross-linguistic study, Ph.D. dissertation,
McGill University.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1984) “On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns,” Linguistic Inquiry 15,
531–574.
Jayaseelan, K. A. (1997) “Anaphors as pronouns,” Studia Linguistica 51, 186–234.

-459- 459 -

2008

2012









Jayaseelan, K. A. (2001) “IP-internal topic and focus phrases,” Studia Linguistica 55, 39–75.
Jayaseelan, K. A. (2010) “Stacking, stranding, and pied-piping: A Proposal about word order,” Syntax
13, 298–330.
Kim, S. (1999) “Sloppy/strict identity, empty objects, and NP ellipsis,” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 8, 255–284.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988) “Whether we agree or not: a comparative syntax of English and Japanese,”
Linguisticae Investigationes 12, 1–47.
Mathew, R. (2012) “Verb movement and wh in Malayalam,” presentation at Formal Approaches toSouth Asian Languages 2, MIT.
McCloskey, J. (1991) “Clause structure, ellipsis, and proper government in Irish,” Lingua 85, 259–
302.
Miyagawa, S. (2010) Why agree? Why move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse
configurational languages, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Oku, S. (1998) A theory of selection and reconstruction in the minimalist perspective, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Otani, K. and J. Whitman. (1991) “V-raising and VP-ellipsis,” Linguistic Inquiry 22, 345–358.
Pan, H. (2000) “Why the blocking effect?” In P. Cole, J. Huang and G. Hermon eds., Long-distancereflexives (Syntax and semantics 33), Academic Press, New York, 279–316.
Saito, M. (2004) “Ellipsis and pronominal reference in Japanese clefts,” Nanzan Linguistics 1, 21-50.
Saito, M. (2007) “Notes on East Asian argument ellipsis,” Language Research 43, 203–227.
Takahashi, D. (2008a) “Noun phrase ellipsis.” In S. Miyagawa and M. Saito eds., The Oxford
handbook of Japanese linguistics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 394–422.
Takahashi, D. (2008b) “Quantificational null objects and argument ellipsis,” Linguistic Inquiry 39,
307–326.
Takahashi, D. (forthcoming) “Argument ellipsis, anti-agreement, and scrambling.” In M. Saito ed.,Japanese syntax in comparative perspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Takano, Y. (forthcoming) “A comparative approach to Japanese postposing.” In M. Saito ed.,Japanese syntax in comparative perspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Takita, K. (2011) “An argument for argument ellipsis from -sika NPIs,” NELS 39, Proceedings of the39th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, GLSA, Amherst, Mass., 771–784.
Tanaka, H. (2001) “Right-dislocation as scrambling,” Journal of Linguistics 37, 551–579.
Williams, E. (1977) “Discourse and logical form,” Linguistic Inquiry 8, 101–139.

-460- 460 -MOVEMENT OF ANTECEDENTS AND MINIMALITY
Yuji Takano
Kinjo Gakuin University

1.

Introduction

One issue in syntax hotly debated in recent years is how to treat what has traditionallybeen analyzed in terms of referential dependencies. One instance of this general issue has to
do with the treatment of obligatory control. The traditional approach to obligatory control
claims that the subject of the control complement clause is a phonetically null pronominal
element called PRO and that this PRO is controlled by an element in the higher clause, as
shown in (1a). On the other hand, since Hornstein’s (1999, 2001) influential work, analternative approach has been pursued by a number of researchers according to which thecontroller-PRO relation is replaced by a movement relation, so that the controller moves fromthe subject of the control complement, as shown in (1b), where the material surrounded byangled brackets shows an unpronounced copy of the moved element.
(1)

a. Johni tried [PROi to leave].
b. John thinks that <John> he is smart.

This move has also affected the analysis of binding relations. Thus, a number of authors
propose that what has traditionally been analyzed in terms of binding be replaced by
movement, in such a way that antecedents moves from the position of pronouns or reflexives(Hornstein 2001, Motomura 2001, Kayne 2002, Zwart 2002, Fujii 2007, Lasnik 2007,
Miyamoto 2008). According to this proposal, the binding relation between John and he in(2a) should be captured in terms of movement of John from the position of he, as shown in(2b).1(2)

a. Johni thinks that hei is smart.
b. John thinks that <John> he is smart.

1

There are two major proposals about what exactly happens in the subject of the embedded clause.
Hornstein (2001) assimilates it to obligatory control, claiming that John is merged directly into thesubject -position of the embedded clause and moves from there, with its copy spelled out as the
pronoun he. Kayne (2002) proposes an alternative in which he and John get merged first to form a
constituent and this constituent is merged into the embedded subject position, and then John moves
out of this constituent (in fact, Kayne proposes the same analysis for obligatory control; thus, in thisanalysis, John and PRO in (1) form a constituent, this constituent is merged into the embedded subject
position, and John moves out of this constituent to the matrix subject position). I will remain neutral
on the choice between the two analyses until section 3, where I will in fact argue for Kayne’s analysis.

-461-

2008

2012







Hornstein (2001) and Kayne (2002) argue for the movement approach to binding shownin (2b) by reducing the effects of binding conditions A, B, and C to properties of movement.
One direct consequence of the movement approach, according to Kayne, is that it
straightforwardly explains condition C effects of the kind shown in (3a) without appeal tocondition C.
(3)

a. *Hei thinks that Johni is smart.
b. <John> he thinks that John is smart.

In the movement approach, the sentence in (3a), on the intended coreferential interpretation,
involves a derivation illustrated in (3b), where John has moved from the matrix clause to theembedded clause. This movement is an instance of lowering, which is generally prohibited insyntax. Thus, the movement approach reduces this kind of condition C effect to the generalproperty of movement. Hornstein and Kayne discuss other effects traditionally attributed tobinding conditions A, B, and C, in an attempt to capture them in terms of properties of
movement of antecedents.
The purpose of this article is two-fold. First, it defends a movement approach to binding
from a novel perspective. Second, it explores a theoretical issue related to the nature of
movement of antecedents. The empirical evidence for a movement approach to bindingcomes from consideration of multiple clefting constructions in Japanese. I will show that toaccount for their properties, we need to consider antecedents to have moved from the positionof the pronouns or reflexives they bind. The result thus lends support to a movement
approach to binding. Moreover, I will show that movement of antecedents in those cases
shows no minimality effects. This fact raises an interesting theoretical question. I willpropose an account of this fact by looking closely at the nature of antecedent movement.
This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, I will show that certain facts about
multiple clefting in Japanese provides a new argument in favor of the hypothesis that
antecedents move from the position of pronouns/reflexives. In section 3, I will propose ananalysis of the absence of minimality effects with A-movement of antecedents by capitalizingon the hypothesis that antecedent movement is movement from a non- -position to a position. I will then extend this analysis to A-movement in copy raising constructions inEnglish, which, unlike antecedent movement, does show minimality effects. In section 4, I
will conclude the discussion.
2.

New Evidence for Antecedent Movement: Multiple Clefting in JapaneseIn this section, I provide an argument in favor of a movement approach to binding froma novel perspective, by considering the effects of (phonetically null) pronouns and the-462- 462 -Movement of Antecedents and Minimality (Y. Takano)(nonlocal) reflexive zibun on multiple clefting in Japanese.2 Let us begin by looking at
properties of cleft constructions in Japanese.
Japanese has a cleft construction that freely allows multiple elements to appear in thefocus position. The examples in (4b, c) are cleft sentences formed on the basis of the simple
sentence in (4a).
(4)

a. Ken-ga
Ken-NOM

Mari-nihon-oageta.
Mari-DAT book-ACC gave

‘Ken gave a book to Mari.’b. Ken-ga
Ken-NOM

hon-oageta no-wa
book-ACC gave C-TOP

Mari-ni da.
Mari-DAT COP‘It is to Mari that Ken gave a book.’c. Hon-oageta no-wa
book-ACC gave C-TOP

Ken-gaMari-ni da.
Ken-NOM Mari-DAT COP(Lit.) ‘It is Ken to Mari that gave a book.’
In (4b) the dative object appears in the focus position between the topic marker and the
copula and in (4c) the subject and the dative object appear there. (4c) is an instance ofmultiple clefting.
There are two properties of this type of cleft construction relevant for the present
discussion. First, this type of cleft construction involves movement of the focus element (Hoji
1987).3 Second, in multiple clefting, the focus elements must be clausemates (Koizumi 1995,
2

There are three previous studies based on Japanese that argue for a movement approach to binding.
Motomura (2001) first proposes that certain properties of the reflexive zibun can be derived in a
uniform way under the hypothesis that the antecedent undergoes overt A-movement from the positionof zibun. Miyamoto (2008) then argues that the effects of bound pronouns on scope interactions
between wh-phrases and quantifiers in English of the kind discussed by Sloan (1991) can be
accounted for under a movement approach to binding (see also Lasnik 2007), and extends the analysis
to similar effects caused by Japanese zibun. More recently, Abe (2009, 2012) has proposed that therelation between a null subject and its antecedent in Japanese be analyzed in terms of A-movement of
the antecedent. Abe (2012) also proposes that in certain cases, A-movement of the antecedentproduces a chain where its tail, not its head, is pronounced, yielding “backward binding.”
3

To be precise, Hoji (1987) proposes an analysis in which the focus element is base-generated in thefocus position and a null operator corresponding to the focus element moves inside thepresuppositional clause. In this analysis, the sentence in (4b) has the structure shown in (i).
(i)

[CP Opi [TP Ken-ga <OP> hon-o ageta] no]-wa Marii-ni da.

An alternative analysis has been proposed by Hasegawa (1997) and Hiraiwa and Ishihara (2002)
according to which the focus element itself moves (leftward) to a focus position, followed by-463- 463 -

2008

2012







2000).4 The contrast between (6) and (7), both of which are formed on the basis of thesentence in (5), shows the second property.
(5)

Masao-ga Yumi-ni [Ken-ga Mari-ni
hon-oageta to] itta.
Masao-NOM Yumi-DAT [Ken-NOM Mari-DAT book-ACC gave that told
‘Masao told Yumi that Ken gave a book to Mari.’(6)

a. [Ken-ga
Mari-nihon-oageta to][Ken-NOM Mari-DAT book-ACC gave that
Masao-gaYumi-ni da.
Masao-NOM Yumi-DAT COP

itta
told

no-wa
C-TOP

(Lit.) ‘It is Masao Yumi that told that Ken gave a book to Mari.’b. Masao-ga
Yumi-ni [Ken-ga
Masao-NOM Yumi-DAT [Ken-NOM
Mari-nihon-oda.
Mari-DAT book-ACC COP

ageta
gave

to]
that

itta
told

no-wa
C-TOP

(Lit.) ‘It is to Mari a book that Masao told Yumi that Ken gave.’[Ken-gaMari-nia. *Masao-ga
Masao-NOM[Ken-NOM Mari-DAT
Yumi-nihon-oda.
Yumi-DAT book-ACC COP(7)ageta to]gave thatitta no-wa
told C-TOP(Lit.) ‘It is Yumi a book that Masao told that Ken gave to Mari.’(leftward) movement (topicalization) of a remnant to a higher topic position. In this analysis, thesentence in (4b) is derived as shown in (ii).
(ii) a.

Ken-ga Mari-ni hon-o ageta no da.

 movement of focus phrase topicalization of remnantb.

Mari-ni Ken-ga <Mari-ni> hon-o ageta no da.

c.

[X Ken-ga <Mari-ni> hon-o ageta no]-wa Mari-ni <X> da.

Here I am not committed to either alternative, though I use the term “movement of the focus element”
for expository purposes.
4

There are two major proposals to derive this generalization. One proposal is made by Koizumi(1995, 2000) and Kuwabara (1996), and an alternative is proposed by Takano (2002). For present
purposes, it is sufficient to simply assume the generalization.

-464- 464 -Movement of Antecedents and Minimality (Y. Takano)[Ken-gahon-ob. * Yumi-ni
Yumi-DAT [Ken-NOM
book-ACC
Masao-gaMari-ni da.
Mari-DAT COP
Masao-NOM

ageta to]gave that

itta
told

no-wa
C-TOP

(Lit.) ‘It is Masao to Mari that told Yumi that Ken gave a book.’
In (6) the two focus elements come from the same clause, whereas in (7) they come fromdifferent clauses. Only the examples in (6) are grammatical. Thus, there is a clausemate
restriction imposed on Japanese multiple clefting.
However, there are exceptions to this generalization. One exception has been pointed out
by Takano (2002), who observes that (8b) is acceptable, in contrast to (8a).5(8)a. *[Bill-ga[Bill-NOM

a-eru
to]
meet-can thatomotteiru no-wa
think
C-TOP

John-gaMary-ni da.
John-NOM Mary-DAT COP(Lit.) ‘It is John Mary that thinks that Bill can meet.’(John thinks that Bill can meet Mary.)b. [proia-eru
to]meet-can thatomotteiru no-wa
think
C-TOP

Johni-ga Mary-ni da.
John-NOM Mary-DAT COP(Lit.) ‘It is John Mary that thinks that he can meet.’(John thinks that he can meet Mary.)
The unacceptability of (8a) is consistent with the clausemate restriction, but the acceptabilityof (8b) constitutes an apparent counterexample to it. The crucial factor that makes (8b)acceptable seems to be the presence of a phonetically null pronoun (pro) bound by the matrix
subject. In fact, the example is acceptable only on the reading on which the pro is bound by
the matrix subject John; if the pro refers to some other person, the sentence is unacceptable.
Although Takano (2002) discusses only (8b), the effect is quite general (see also Kuno
2007). For example, it is not just a pro that has this effect; the overt reflexive zibun also
works the same way:6
5

The judgments are relative. The example in (8a) sounds better than those in (7), but I abstract awayfrom this difference, marking (8a) with a star. What is important is the contrast between (8a), which isdegraded, and (8b), which is perfectly acceptable. The same reservation holds throughout this article.
6

In Takano (2002: note 16), I judged (9) to be slightly degraded, as compared with (8b). Although
there may be a slight difference between the two in this direction, I believe now that (9) is fairly
acceptable and contrasts significantly with (8a). As also noted in Takano 2002: note 16, the sentence
becomes unacceptable if we replace zibun in (9) with the overt pronoun kare ‘he’:-465- 465 -20122008(9)[Zibuni-ga[self-nom



a-eru
to]
meet-can that



omotteiru no-wa
think
C-TOP

Johni-ga
John-NOMMary-ni da.
Mary-DAT COP(Lit.) ‘It is John Mary that thinks that he can meet.’(John thinks that he can meet Mary.)
The following examples show the same point.
(10)

a. *Keni-ga
Ken-nom
Yumi-niYumi-DAT[proi/zibuni-ga iku[
self-NOM go
America-e da.
America-to COP

to]
that

itta no-wa
told C-TOP(Lit.) ‘It is Yumi to America that Ken told that he would go.’(Ken told Yumi that he would go to America.)
b. Yumi-ni
Yumi-DAT
Keni-ga
Ken-NOM[proi/zibuni-ga iku[proi/self-NOM go
America-e da.
America-to COP

to] itta no-wa
that told C-TOP(Lit.) ‘It is Ken to America that told Yumi that he would go.’(Ken told Yumi that he would go to America.)(11)

a. *Yumii-ni [proi iku-beki da to] itta no-wa
Yumi-DAT
go-should COP that told C-TOP
Ken-gaAmerika-eda.
Ken-NOM
America-to COP(Lit.) ‘It is Ken to America that told Yumi that she should go.’(Ken told Yumi that she should go to America.)(i) * Karei-ga
he-NOMa-eru
meet-cantothatomotteiru
think

no-wa
C-TOP

Johni-ga
John-NOM

Mary-ni da.
Mary-DAT COP(Lit.) ‘It is John Mary that thinks that he can meet.’(John thinks that he can meet Mary.)
However, it seems that (i) is unacceptable for reasons having nothing to do with multiple clefting. It isvery hard, to begin with, for kare in the presuppositional clause to be interpreted as coreferential witha focus element, as shown in (ii).
(ii) Mary-ga
kare-no syasin-omiseta no-wa John-nida.
Mary-NOM he-GEN picture-ACC showed C-TOP John-DAT COP‘It is to John that Mary showed his picture.’
The cleft sentence in (ii) has a single focus. The sentence is acceptable if kare takes a discourse
antecedent, but is unacceptable if it takes John as its antecedent. The sentence in (i) is probably
unacceptable for whatever reason makes coreference between kare and John impossible in (ii).

-466- 466 -Movement of Antecedents and Minimality (Y. Takano)b. Ken-ga[proi iku-beki da to] itta no-wa
Ken-NOM
go-should COP that told C-TOP
Yumii-ni Amerika-e da.
Yumi-DAT America-to COP(Lit.) ‘It is Yumi to Americal that Ken told that she should go.’(Ken told Yumi that she should go to America.)
The deviance of (10a) and (11a) can be attributed to the clausemate restriction, given that thetwo focus elements come from different clauses. The improved status of (10b) and (11b), on
the other hand, apparently runs counter to this restriction. The factor distinguishing(10a)/(11a) and (10b)/(11b) is the presence/absence of a binding relation between the focus
element from the matrix clause and a pro/reflexive in the embedded clause.7
Furthermore, apparent counterexamples to the clausemate restriction are not limited tocases having a pro/reflexive in the subject of the embedded clause. They can also be found incases where a pro/reflexive is in the object of the embedded clause. The examples in (12)duplicate the patterns in (8) and (9).
(12)

Mari-osuisensu-bekida to] omotteiru no-wa
a. *[Masao-ga[Masao-NOM Mari-ACC recommend-should COP that think
C-TOP
Ken-gasono
kaisya-nida.
that
company-DAT COP
Ken-NOM(Lit.) ‘It is Ken to that company that thinks that Masao should recommend Mari.’(Ken thinks that Masao should recommend Mari to that company.)b. [zibuni-ga[self-NOM
Keni-ga
Ken-NOM

Mari-osuisensu-bekiMari-ACC recommend-shouldsonokaisya-nida.
that
company-DAT COP

da
COPto] omotteiru no-wa
that think
C-TOP(Lit.) ‘It is Ken to that company that thinks that he should recommend Mari.’(Ken thinks that he should recommend Mari to that company.)
Now observe (13).

7

We cannot use the reflexive zibun in the embedded subject in (11) because zibun is subject-oriented
and hence cannot have a matrix object as its antecedent.

-467- 467 -

2008

2012





zibuni-o suisensu-beki(13) ? [Masao-ga
Masao-NOM self-ACC recommend-should
Keni-gasono kaisya-nida.
that company-DAT COP
Ken-NOM



da
COP

to]
that



omotteiru no-wa
think
C-TOP

(Lit.) ‘It is Ken to that company that thinks that Masao should recommend him.’(Ken thinks that Masao should recommend him to that company.)
This example, like the one in (12b), improves on (12a) though the reflexive is placed in the
direct object of the embedded clause.8
So far we have seen that the presence of a pronominal (a pro or a reflexive) in an
embedded clause that is bound by the matrix element saves the example from violating theclausemate restriction. However, it is not the case that the mere presence of a boundpronominal in an embedded clause ensures this effect.9 To see this, let us consider (14).
(14)[Yumi-ga aukoto]-o yurusite-kureru to]a. *[Masao-ga[Masao-NOM [Yumi-NOM meet
C-ACC
permit-givethatomotteiru
no-wa Ken-ga
Mari-ni
da.
think
C-TOP
Ken-NOM Mari-DAT COP(Lit.) ‘It is Ken Mari that thinks that Masao will permit Yumi to meet.’(Ken thinks that Masao will permit Yumi to meet Mari.)[proi/zibuni-ga
aukoto]-o yurusite-kureru
b. ?[Masao-ga[Masao-NOM[proi/self-NOM
meet
C-ACC
permit-give
omotteiru
no-wa
Keni-gaMari-ni
da.
think
C-TOP
Ken-NOM Mari-DAT COP

to]
that

(Lit.) ‘It is Ken Mari that thinks that Masao will permit him to meet.’(Ken thinks that Masao will permit him to meet Mari.)

8

There may be a slight difference between (12b) and (13), such that (13) is a little worse than (12b).
Here I take the improvement of (13) over (12a) to be an important fact that calls for an explanation.
Note also that it is not easy to use a pro in place of zibun in (13) due to the intervening fact that
coreference between Ken and the embedded object pro is hard to get. This is because coreference
between the matrix subject and the embedded object pro is not natural in its noncleft counterpart in (i)(see Kuroda (1965), Huang (1984), and Hasegawa (1985) for discussion of this fact in Japanese).

(i)

Ken-ga[Masao-ga
sono kaisya-ni
pro
Ken-NOM [Masao-NOM that company-DAT

suisensu-bekidarecommend-should COP‘Ken thinks that Masao should recommend him/her/them/etc. to that company.’
It is very hard to interpret the pro in (i) to refer to Ken.
9

I thank Mamoru Saito for bringing this point to my attention.

-468- 468 -

to]
that

omotteiru.
thinkMovement of Antecedents and Minimality (Y. Takano)

Each of these examples contains two embedded clauses. (14a) violates the clausemate
restriction and is indeed unacceptable. (14b), on the other hand, has a pronominal bound by
the matrix subject in the lower embedded clause and it does improve on (14a). Compare now(14b) with (15).
[Masao-ga(15) *[proi/zibuni-ga
self-NOM[Masao-NOM
omotteiru
no-wa Keni-ga
think
C-TOP
Ken-NOM

aukoto]-o yurusu-bekimeet C-ACC
permit-should
Mari-nida.
Mari-DAT COP

da
COP

to]
that

(Lit.) ‘It is Ken Mari that thinks that he should permit Masao to meet.’(Ken thinks that he should permit Masao to meet Mari.)
Like (14b), (15) has a pronominal bound by the matrix subject, but here it is in the higher
embedded clause and the sentence is much worse than (14b). This shows that the mere
presence of a bound pronominal does not save the example from violating the clausemate
restriction. In fact, the examples that we have seen so far indicate that the saving effect can beseen only when the bound pronominal is a clausemate with the focus element from anembedded clause. In (8b), (9), (10b), (11b), (12b), (13), and (14b), this situation obtains, but
in (15), it does not.
These observations lead us to the following generalization about the clausemate
restriction on multiple clefting.10(16)

X, Y = focus elements in a multiple cleft
When X is from the matrix clause and Y is from an embedded clause, the sentence is
acceptable only if (i) there is a pronominal bound by X and (ii) the pronominal is aclausemate with Y.

The next question is, why should this be the case?
We can derive this generalization straightforwardly under a movement approach tobinding, in which the matrix element in question moves from the position of the pronominal itbinds. Thus, under a movement approach, the example in (17a) receives the analyses given in(17b, c).
(17)

a. Keni-ga
Ken-NOM[proi/zibuni-ga[
self-NOM

Mari-niMari-DAT

a-eru
to]meet-CAN thatomotteiru.
think‘Ken thinks that he can meet Mari.’b. Ken-ga [<Ken-ga> pro Mari-ni a-eru to] omotteiru
10

Kuno (2007) puts forward a similar generalization. While Kuno’s generalization is restricted tocases where the “pronominal” in (16) is phonetically null (i.e., PRO, pro, or trace), the present
generalization also covers cases where it is overt (i.e., zibun).

-469- 469 -

2008

2012







c. Ken-ga [<Ken-ga> zibun-ga Mari-ni a-eru to] omotteiru
In the analyses in (17b, c), the unpronounced copy of Ken and Mari are clausemates. Thus,
there is a stage in the derivation at which Ken and Mari are clausemates. Then thegeneralization in (16) falls into place: the apparent exceptions to the clausemate restriction allmeet the restriction before movement of the matrix element. Given that movement ofantecedents plays an essential role in this account, this result argues for a movement approachto binding.
We cannot achieve the same result under a nonmovement approach to binding, where
the relevant matrix element stays in the matrix clause throughout the derivation. In such ananalysis, (8b), (9), (10b), (11b), (12b), (13), and (14b) would violate the clausemate
restriction and hence their acceptability would be left unaccounted for.
There are two consequences that follow immediately from this proposal. First, the cases
falling under (16) show that A-movement out of a CP is possible. In those cases, theantecedent moves out of an embedded clause that is clearly a CP (as evidenced by thepresence of an overt complementizer). It is also clear that the antecedent undergoes Amovement, given that it moves to a -position in the matrix clause. Bokovi (2007) andothers cited there claim, on various grounds, that A-movement should be allowed to takeplace out of a CP. The present proposal lends additional support to their claim.
Another consequence is that movement of antecedents shows no minimality effects. Thiscan be seen clearly in (10b), (13), and (14b), where A-movement of the antecedent crosses anintervening argument (a matrix object in the case of (10b) and an embedded subject in thecase of (13) and (14)). It is this property that I will turn to in the next section.
3.

Minimality Effects

3.1. The Absence of Minimality Effects with Antecedent Movement
Kayne (2002) observes that movement of antecedents does not obey minimality. This is
obvious in cases like (18).
(18)

John thinks that Mary likes him.

The movement approach dictates that the coreferential reading arise from movement of John
from the position of him past Mary, in apparent violation of minimality.
Japanese multiple clefting leads us to the same conclusion. Let us consider (19),repeated from (10b), (13), and (14b).

-470- 470 -Movement of Antecedents and Minimality (Y. Takano)(19)

a. Yumi-ni
Yumi-DAT
Keni-ga
Ken-NOM[proi/zibuni-ga iku[proi/self-NOM go
America-e da.
America-to COP

to]
that

itta
told

no-wa
C-TOP

(Lit.) ‘It is Ken to America that told Yumi that he would go.’(Ken told Yumi that he would go to America.)zibuni-o suisensu-beki
b. ?[Masao-ga[Masao-NOM
self-ACC recommend-should
Keni-gasono kaisya-nida.
Ken-NOM
that company-DAT COP

da
COPto] omotteiru no-wa
that think
C-TOP(Lit.) ‘It is Ken to that company that thinks that Masao should recommend him.’(Ken thinks that Masao should recommend him to that company.)c. ? [Masao-ga[proi/zibuni-ga aukoto]-o yurusite-kureru to][Masao-NOM[
self-NOM meet C-ACC
permit-givethatomotteiru
no-wa Keni-ga
Mari-ni da.
think
C-TOP
Ken-NOM Mari-DAT COP(Lit.) ‘It is Ken Mari that thinks that Masao will permit him to meet.’(Ken thinks that Masao will permit him to meet Mari.)
In these cases, Ken must have originated from the position of the pronominal (otherwise, thesentences would violate the clausemate restriction) and moved to positions where it isassigned a subject -role by itta ‘told’ and omotteiru ‘think.’ This means that Ken has
undergone A-movement. Note that this A-movement of Ken crosses A-positions filled by
Yumi and Masao. The movement thus apparently does not obey minimality, contrasting withstandard A-movement, which does obey minimality, as in (20).
(20)

a. John seems to be likely [<John> to win].
b. * John seems it is likely [<John> to win].

These observations are consistent with Kayne’s (2002: 161) suggestion that there are no
minimality effects with antecedent movement. But why should this be so?
Note that movement of controllers (under a movement approach to control) does obey
minimality. Hornstein (1999, 2001) argues that minimal distance effects of the kind seen in(21b, c) follow from minimality.
(21)

a. John told Mary to read the book.
b. John told Mary [<Mary> to read the book]-471- 471 -

2008

2012









c. *John told Mary [<John> to read the book](21b) is a possible derivation for (21a), but (21c) is not. Hornstein argues that under the
movement approach, (21c) is excluded because movement of John past Mary is blocked byminimality.
Exactly the same effects can be seen in Japanese as well. Thus, for the sentence in (22a),(22b) is a possible derivation, but (22c) is not.
(22)

a. Ken-ga
Ken-NOM

Mari-nisono
Mari-DAT that

hon-o
yomu
book-ACC readyooni itta.
C
told‘Ken told Mari to read the book.’b. Ken-ga Mari-ni [<Mari> sono hon-o yomu yooni] itta
c. *Ken-ga Mari-ni [<Ken> sono hon-o yomu yooni] itta
This shows that in Japanese, as in English, A-movement of controllers obeys minimality.11
One possibility that comes to mind is to account for the lack of minimality effects in (19)by appealing to scrambling (see Motomura 2001 for a proposal of this kind in a different
context). It is well known that Japanese scrambling shows no minimality effects. If
movement of Ken in (19) could make use of scrambling before it reached a -position in thematrix clause, the apparent minimality violations would be accounted for. However, this is
not the right move, given (22). In (22) movement of the controller does obey minimality. If
scrambling were available for A-movement to a -position, (22c) should be a possible
derivation for (22a), contrary to fact. Another problem with this move is that it cannot coverantecedent movement in languages like English without scrambling (see (18)). Thus, we needto seek some other way to account for the lack of minimality effects with antecedent
movement.
What makes antecedent movement different from other A-movement? Noting thispuzzle, Kayne (2002: note 36) suggests that antecedent movement is not subject tominimality because it is not an instance of attraction. Kayne’s suggestion is based on theassumption that A-movement usually involves attraction and that minimality effects follow
from the mechanisms of attraction (such as attracting closest possible elements). However,given recent work on movement, the validity of this assumption is not clear. Bokovi (2007),
for instance, proposes a system in which A-movement does not involve attraction and the soledriving force for A-movement is a Case-related property of the moving DP, not a property ofa higher head. Another possibility is put forward by Chomsky (2008), who claims that
Internal Merge (i.e., movement) is as free as external Merge (i.e., base generation). On thisview, too, it is in principle possible for A-movement to occur without attraction.
11

See Fujii (2006), Takano (2010), and Takita (to appear) for arguments in favor of a movement
approach to control in Japanese.

-472- 472 -Movement of Antecedents and Minimality (Y. Takano)

Given this state of affairs, I pursue Kayne’s (2002) intuition (that antecedent movement
lacks something common to standard A-movement) in a way that does not rest on attraction.
Note first that the observations so far indicate clearly that minimality effects cannot be
explained in terms of such notions as A-position and A-movement: with those notions, wecannot distinguish antecedent movement from other A-movement. This point thus strengthens
the claim made by Bokovi (2007: note 24) that Relativized Minimality should be
relativized not with respect to the A/A’ distinction but with respect to the features involved(see also Rizzi 2004). I adopt this approach to minimality.
Recall from section 2 that A-movement of antecedents can cross CP boundaries. In thefollowing discussion, I assume with Bokovi (2007) and others cited there that A-movementout of a CP proceeds by way of a specifier of C. In other words, “improper movement” of thiskind is in principle possible.
Given these assumptions, minimality effects can be seen as arising when an elementwith some feature crosses another element with the same feature. Under standard
assumptions, the feature relevant to minimality for A-movement is a Case feature. Thus, forpresent purposes, I assume the following generalization about minimality for A-movement(cf. Rizzi 2004).
(23)…X…Z…Y
A-movement of Y to X is blocked if Z intervenes between X and Y, and both Y and Z
have Case features.

Following Rizzi (2004), let us assume that the notion of intervention is defined in terms of ccommand, as in (27).
(24)

Z intervenes between X and Y iff Z c-commands Y and Z does not c-command X.

With this in mind, let us consider what property makes the right distinction between
antecedent movement and other A-movement. (25) summarizes what appear to be clear
properties of the three types of A-movement under consideration.12(25)

a. Standard A-movement
The DP receives a -role in its base position and enters into Case licensing in its
landing site.
b. Movement of controllers
The DP receives a -role in its base position as well as in the course of movement,
and enters into Case licensing in its landing site.

12

Here I use the term “Case licensing” as a cover term for checking, agreement, or valuation.

-473- 473 -

2008

2012







c. Movement of antecedents
The DP receives a -role in the course of movement and enters into Case licensing
in its landing site.
We can see that the two properties listed in (25c) cannot distinguish antecedent movementfrom the other two: the first property is shared by movement of controllers and the second byboth standard A-movement and movement of controllers.
This leaves us with a possibility that what makes antecedent movement special has to dowith what happens in the base position. The question then boils down to how exactly to treat
pronominals under a movement approach to binding. Recall from note 1 that there are two
previous proposals about this. These are shown in (26) and (27).
(26)

John thinks that he(=<John>) is smart.

(27)

John thinks that [<John> he] is smart.

The analysis in (26) is due to Hornstein (2001) and the one in (27) to Kayne (2002). Details
aside, Hornstein claims that the antecedent John is directly merged into a subject -positionof the embedded clause and then copied onto a subject -position of the matrix clause, withthe pronoun he inserted, as a last resort, in place of the copy John in the embedded subject
when direct A-movement from that position is impossible (if direct A-movement is possible,
the original position is realized as a reflexive). On the other hand, Kayne proposes that theantecedent first gets merged with the pronoun, forming the constituent [John he], that thisconstituent is merged into a subject -position of the embedded clause, and that theantecedent moves out of this constituent to the matrix clause, leaving a copy in the usual way.
In the following discussion, I assume that the relevant constituent [John he] is a DP.
Let us adopt the widely accepted view that a crucial factor driving A-movement of a DP
is that the DP has a Case feature that is yet to be licensed. This favors Kayne’s analysis in(27). In this analysis, the DP [John he] is licensed for its Case in the embedded clause.
Following Kayne, let us further assume that the pronoun he is the head of this DP.13 Then the
pronoun is licensed for its Case in the embedded clause, but the antecedent is not. Thus, theantecedent John has the property that drives A-movement.
Note also that under Kayne’s analysis, the subject -role of smart is assigned to the DP[John he]. Since he is the head of this DP, it does not need an independent -role. But John
lacks a -role in its base position. In other words, antecedent movement is characterized as
movement from a non- -position to a -position. I propose that this is the crucial factor that
13

There are a number of possibilities regarding the internal structure of the DP in question. One
possibility is that the pronoun he is literally the head D of the DP, with possibly a phonetically null NP
complement. Alternatively, the pronoun he is a noun selected by a phonetically null D. In this case,
the DP is an “extended” projection of the pronoun he and he is the “head” of the DP in the extended
sense. Like Kayne (2002), I abstract away from the details of the internal structure of the DP.

-474- 474 -Movement of Antecedents and Minimality (Y. Takano)distinguishes antecedent movement and other A-movement: the moving DP receives a -role
in its base position in the case of standard A-movement and controller movement, but it does
not in the case of antecedent movement.
To implement this idea, I propose (28).
(28)-roles make the Case features of DPs visible to the computation.

The idea here is a reinterpretation of “visibility” to -role assignment proposed by Chomsky(1981: chap. 6). Chomsky proposes to derive the Case Filter from the -Criterion, claimingthat for an argument to receive a -role at LF, it must be “visible” at LF and that an argument
is visible at LF only if it is assigned Case at S-structure.14 Thus, on Chomsky’s original view,
Case has the effect of making DPs visible to -role assignment. The proposal in (28) also
takes the relation between Case and -role seriously, but in a way opposite to Chomsky’sview. It works roughly as follows. Given (28), we understand that “Case features” in (23)mean visible Case features. Suppose a DP with a Case feature enters a derivation. Usually
this DP is merged into a -position. Thus, given (28), the Case feature of this DP is visible tothe computation. As a result, minimality effects arise, due to (23), if this DP is to move overanother DP with a visible Case feature. This is the situation with standard A-movement andcontroller movement. A different situation arises with antecedent movement. The antecedent
DP with a Case feature is first merged with a pronoun and the resulting DP containing thetwo is then merged into a -position. The antecedent DP lacks a -role inside the larger DP
headed by the pronoun. Thus, when the antecedent DP undergoes movement, its Case feature
is invisible to the computation, due to (28). It is not until it moves to a -position that its Casefeature becomes visible. In other words, the computation treats the antecedent DP, up to a position, as an element without a Case feature. As a result, the antecedent can move freely up
to a -position over DPs with visible Case features without causing minimality effects.
Let us look at concrete examples. Under this proposal, nothing special needs to be said
about standard A-movement, as in (29).
(29)

John seems to be likely [<John> to win]

The Case feature of the DP John becomes visible when the DP gets merged into the subject position in the embedded clause. A-movement of John from that position to the matrix clausedoes not cause a minimality violation since it does not cross any element with a Case feature.
Obligatory control cases fall into place, too. Let us consider the grammatical case in
(30).
(30)

John told Mary [<Mary> to leave]

14

Chomsky’s (1981) original proposal is couched in terms of chains. I abstract away from this aspectof his proposal.

-475- 475 -

2008

2012







The Case feature of Mary is visible in the embedded clause. A-movement of Mary to thematrix clause does not cross any element with a Case feature. Thus, the sentence can bederived without causing problems.
Consider the ungrammatical derivation in (31).
(31) *John told Mary [<John> to leave]
Here the Case features of John and Mary are visible before John moves. As a result,
movement of John, which has a visible Case feature, over Mary, which also has a visible
Case feature, causes a minimality violation.
Let us consider the superraising case in (32).
(32) *John seems it is likely [<John> to win]
A-movement of John crosses the expletive it. John has a visible Case feature when it crosses
the expletive. What about the expletive? Intuitively, the visibility condition in (28) is acondition on elements that require -roles. Expletives do not require -roles (in fact, they are
incompatible with -roles). Therefore, they fall outside the condition in (28) and their Casefeatures are inherently visible. Let us make it a concrete proposal, revising (28) to (33).15(33)

The Case feature of a DP is visible to the computation iff the DP satisfies the-Criterion.

The -Criterion relevant to (33) is (34).
(34)

An argument must receive a -role.

(33) has the same effects as (28) for argument DPs. For expletives, (33) claims that their Casefeatures are visible from the beginning because they satisfy the -Criterion vacuously.
Given (33), John in (32), which has a visible Case feature, moves over an element with avisible Case feature, namely, the expletive it, thereby causing a minimality violation.
Let us turn now to movement of antecedents. Let us consider the sentence in (35) on thereading on which John is an antecedent of him.
(35)

John thinks that Mary likes him.

Under a movement approach a la Kayne (2002), this sentence is derived in the following way.
First, John and him are merged, forming the DP [John him]. Then the DP [John him] ismerged into the object of likes. After the derivation forms the matrix vP, the antecedent DP
John moves to Spec,v, where it receives a subject -role. Note that in this part of thederivation, John moves over Mary, which has a visible Case feature. However, due to (33),15This idea was suggested to me by Tomohiro Fujii.

-476- 476 -Movement of Antecedents and Minimality (Y. Takano)

the Case feature of John is invisible to the computation when it moves over Mary. Its Casefeature becomes visible only in Spec,v in the matrix clause. As a result, A-movement of John
over Mary does not cause a minimality violation.
A question arises here. Given that the Case feature of John is invisible up to Spec,v inthe matrix clause, what drives movement of John to that position? There are two possibilities.
One is that -roles can be a driving force for A-movement, as in Hornstein’s (1999, 2001)
theory. Since John has no -role, it moves to a -position to receive a -role (on this view, weneed to assume that the moving element has a driving force; see Bokovi 2007 forarguments in favor of this view). Another possibility is to assume with Chomsky (2008) thatinternal Merge (i.e., movement) is as free as external Merge (i.e., base generation). In thisalternative, movement of John can take place without a driving force, so that it can move toSpec,v by means of internal Merge.16 Either way, we can derive the desired results.
In the present analysis, the visibility condition in (33) plays a crucial role in accounting
for the lack of minimality effects with antecedent movement. This analysis is made possible
under Kayne’s (2002) theory, where the antecedent and the pronoun are first merged to froma constituent, which is in turn merged into a -position. Thus, the present proposal lends
independent support to Kayne’s theory.
There is another consequence. The proposed account of the lack of minimality effects interms of (33) makes crucial reference to whether a given DP has received a -role at a given
stage of a derivation. This information has to be available through the course of a derivation.
Thus, thematic information is not just an interface property but plays a role in the corecomputation as well.
3.2. The Presence of Minimality Effects with Copy Raising
The analysis that I have just proposed claims that the example in (35) does not violate
minimality because the Case feature of John is invisible to the computation when it crosses
the argument DP Mary. The invisibility of the Case feature is ensured by (33). Crucial here is
the analysis, due to Kayne (2002), in which the antecedent and the pronominal form a DP thatis merged into a -position and the antecedent moves out of this DP to a -position. In section
3.1, I assumed, following Kayne (2001), that the antecedent does not receive a -role inside
the DP out of which it moves. This property, coupled with (33), accounts for the lack ofminimality effects with antecedent movement.
However, there are cases in which we must assume that an argument receives a -role
inside the DP out of which it moves. The evidence comes from copy raising constructions
16

On this view, it is a separate question why elements cannot stay freely in their landing sites (e.g.,
objects in English cannot appear freely in preverbal positions). The question is related to the issue ofwhat allows free movement such as scrambling. One possibility is that while movement operations areallowed freely by means of internal Merge, properties of landing sites may block moved elementsfrom surfacing there. This will give rise to effects that make movement look like it is not free.

-477- 477 -

2008

2012







like those in (36).
(36)

a. John seems like he is smart.
b. John looks as if he is smart.

Copy raising constructions have the property of having a pronoun in a -position and its“antecedent” in a non- -position. In the copy raising constructions in (36), John is understood
to be a subject of smart though the subject position of smart is occupied by he and John is in
a non- -position.
There is evidence that at least in certain cases of copy raising, the surface matrix subject
has moved from the embedded subject. Consider the following examples.
(37)

a. The shoe looks like it’s on the other foot.

(Potsdam and Runner 2001)

b. These stories about each otheri sound like they would frighten John and Maryi.
(Fujii 2007)
The copy raising example in (37a) has an idiom chunk in the matrix subject position and its“pronominal associate” in the embedded subject position. Potsdam and Runner (2001) reportthat it is acceptable, though there is some dialectal variation in its acceptability. The
availability of the idiom reading in (37a) shows that the matrix subject is interpreted in theembedded subject. A straightforward analysis of this fact will be one where the matrix subject
has moved from the embedded subject. 17 Similarly, Fujii (2007) reports that (37b) is
acceptable. This indicates that the anaphor each other contained in the matrix subject can bebound by the embedded object John and Mary. Thus, (37b) patterns with (38a) and not with(38b).
(38)a.

Each otheri’s mothers seem to please the two boysi.

b. ?*John seemed to each otheri’s mothers to please the two boysi.
(Fujii 2007)
The contrast in (38) indicates that the acceptability of (38a) is due to movement of the matrix
subject containing each other from the embedded subject, which produces a reconstruction
context, making it possible for each other to be bound by the embedded object (cf. It seems
that each other’s mothers please the two boys.). (38b) is unacceptable because each otherstays in the matrix clause throughout the derivation and so can never be bound by theembedded object. Fujii (2007) claims that the fact that (37b) patterns with (38a) shows that in(37b) the matrix subject has moved from the position of they (see also Ura 1998 for an earlier
17

Potsdam and Runner (2001) propose an analysis in which John and he are base generated in thematrix clause and in the embedded clause, respectively, and they form a base-generated A-chain.
According to their analysis, the presence of the base-generated A-chain accounts for the idiom readingin (37a). In the movement account adopted in the text, we can dispense with the notion of basegenerated A-chain.

-478- 478 -Movement of Antecedents and Minimality (Y. Takano)proposal for a movement analysis of copy raising).
In the present perspective, we can account for the movement properties of copy raisingby analyzing it as illustrated in (39).
(39)

John seems like [<John> he] is smart.

In (39) John and he form a DP constituent and this DP is merged into a subject -position in
the embedded clause. Then John moves out of the DP to the matrix clause, where its Case islicensed.18 So far the situation is exactly identical to what happens in the case of standard
binding (e.g., John thinks that [<John> he] is smart). However, there is an importantdifference between the two cases. In the case of binding, the antecedent moves to a position, whereas in the case of copy raising, it moves to a non- -position. This means thatJohn in (39) must receive a -role in its base position inside the DP [John he]; otherwise, itwould receive no thematic interpretation.
Given that the antecedent receives a -role in its base position in copy raising, it ispredicted, from the perspective of (33), that copy raising will exhibit minimality effects. This
is in fact the case. Consider first the following examples from Potsdam and Runner (2001).
(40)

a. Bill sounds like Martha hit him over the head with the record.
b. The roach looks to me like Abbie gave it to Myrna.

On the surface, these cases look identical to the cases in (36). The only difference lies in thefact that the pronominal associates appear in subject positions in (36), but in nonsubject
positions in (40). Interestingly, however, the apparent copy raising constructions in (40) do
not exhibit the reconstruction effect seen in (37b), as the following example shows.
(41) ?*Those stories about each otheri sound like John and Maryi would fear them.
Fujii (2007) observes that (41) contrasts with (37b) in that the relevant binding is not possiblein (41). The ungrammaticality of (41) shows that the matrix subject cannot have moved fromthe position of its pronominal associate them. Fujii claims that this is due to a violation ofminimality: A-movement of those stories about each other from the position of them isblocked by the intervening subject of the embedded clause. This implies in turn that thematrix subject in cases like (40) is necessarily base generated in the matrix subject position
and receives a -role there, as Potsdam and Runner claim (otherwise; the matrix subject
would not receive a -role), and also that cases like (36) are ambiguous between a derivation
where the matrix subject has moved from the embedded subject and one where the matrix
subject is base generated in the matrix clause.
18

Here I depart from Fujii (2007). Fujii claims that in the copy raising construction, the raised DP
enters into multiple Case licensing, so that its Case is licensed both in the embedded clause and in thematrix clause. I assume, following Kayne’s (2001) theory of antecedent movement, that the Case of
the raised DP is licensed only in the matrix clause.

-479- 479 -

2008

2012









Crucial for present purposes is that A-movement of the matrix subject in copy raisingdoes obey minimality, in contrast to A-movement of antecedents. Given that A-movement
must originate from a -position in the case of copy raising, this difference follows
straightforwardly under the present proposal incorporating the visibility condition in (33).
However, the claim that A-movement of the matrix subject in copy raising originatesfrom a -position is contrary to Kayne’s (2002) proposal, which we adopted in section 3.1,
that the antecedent does not receive a -role inside the DP out of which it moves. The
analysis of the lack of minimality effects proposed in section 3.1 supports Kayne’s position,
whereas copy raising argues for the contrary. This state of affairs leads us to conclude that
Universal Grammar makes both options available. Specifically, I propose (42).
(42)

In the DP [X Y], where Y is a pronominal and X is its antecedent,(i) X does not receive a -role in [X Y]; or(ii) X shares a -role with Y.

Recall that the DP [X Y] is merged into a -position and Y, being the head of this DP, has a-role assigned to the DP. In the case of copy raising, option (ii) must be taken; otherwise, themoved subject would receive no thematic interpretation. As a result of taking this option,
copy raising obeys minimality (given the visibility condition in (33)). On the other hand, inthe case of antecedent movement, the two options are available in principle. If option (ii) is
taken, we predict that antecedent movement will show minimality effects, just like copy
raising. However, the other option is also available here. With option (i), coupled with (33),antecedent movement can violate minimality. This is the situation we discussed in section
3.1.194.

Conclusion

In this paper, I have discussed issues related to movement of antecedents in a movement
approach to binding. The major claims I have made are summarized in (43).
(43)

a. Multiple clefting in Japanese provides new evidence that antecedents move fromthe position of pronominals.
b. Movement of antecedents does not obey minimality.

19

Copy raising involving idiom chunks shows minimality effects. Compare (37a) with (i) below,
which Potsdam and Runner (2001) judge as unacceptable.

(i) * The other foot appears like the shoe is on it.
Given (33), the status of (i) follows from minimality. Idiom chunks, like expletives, do not receive roles and so the Case features of the shoe and the other foot in (i) are visible to the computation fromthe beginning. As a result, the other foot can never skip the shoe.

-480- 480 -Movement of Antecedents and Minimality (Y. Takano)c. The antecedent does not receive a -role in its base position.
d.

-roles make the Case features of DPs visible to the computation.

In connection with (43c), I have argued for the hypothesis put forward by Kayne (2002) thatmovement of antecedents is characterized as movement from a non- -position to a -position.
This is a new kind of A-movement and I have proposed that this property, coupled with theproposal in (43d), is responsible for the interesting effect in (43b).

References
Abe, J. (2009) “Locality of Empty Pronouns,” ms., Tohoku Gakuin Univeristy.
Abe, J. (2012) “Backward Anaphora in Japanese: Cases of Condition C Violations,” paper presented
at FAJL 6.
Bokovi, . (2007) “On the Locality and Motivation of Move and Merge: An Even More Minimal
theory,” Linguistic Inquiry 38, 589–644.
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, N. (2008) “On phases.” In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero, and M. L. Zubisarreta, eds.,
Foundational Issues in Linguistics Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, MIT
Press, Cambridge, Mass., 133–166.
Fujii, T. (2006) Some Theoretical Issues in Japanese Control, Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Maryland.
Fujii, T. (2007) “Cyclic Chain Reduction.” In N. Corver and J. Nunes, eds., The Copy Theory ofMovement, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 291–326.
Hasegawa, N. (1985) “On the So-Called “Zero Pronouns” in Japanese,” The Linguistic Review 4, 289–
341.
Hasegawa, N. (1997) “A Copula-Based Analysis of Japanese Clefts: Wa-Cleft and Ga-Cleft,”
Researching and Verifying an Advanced Theory of Human Language, Grant-in-aid for COE
Research, Report (1), Kanda University of International Studies, 15–38.
Hiraiwa, K. and S. Ishihara (2002) “Missing Links: Cleft, Sluicing and “No Da” Construction in
Japanese,” The Proceedings of Humit 2001, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 43, 35–54.
Hoji, H. (1987) “Japanese Clefts and Chain Binding/Reconstruction Effects,” paper presented at
WCCFL VI.
Hornstein, N. (1999) “Movement and Control,” Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69–96.
Hornstein, N. (2001) Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Blackwell, Oxford.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1984) “On the Distribution and Reference of Empty Pronouns,” Linguistic Inquiry 15,
531–574.
Kayne, R. (2002) “Pronouns and Their Antecedents.” In S. D. Epstein and T. D. Seely, eds.,
Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Blackwell, Malden, 133–166.
Koizumi, M. (1995) Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Koizumi, M. (2000) “String Vacuous Overt Verb Raising,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9, 227–
285.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965) Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language, Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT.
Kuwabara, K. (1996) “Multiple Wh-phrases in Elliptical Clauses and Some Aspects of Clefts with
Multiple Foci,” Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 2, MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics 29, 97–116.

-481- 481 -

2008

2012







Lasnik, H. (2007) “A Family of Questions,” ms., University of Maryland.
Miyamoto, Y. (2008) “A Derivational Approach to Scope Interaction between Wh-phrases andQuantifiers,” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 53, 219–336.
Motomura, M. (2001) “Zibun as a Residue of Overt A-movement,” Formal Approaches to Japanese
Linguistics 3, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 41, 309–325.
Potsdam, E. and J. T. Runner (2001) “Richard Returns: Copy Raising and Its Implications,” CLS 37,
453–468.
Rizzi, L. (2004) “Locality and Left Periphery.” In A. Belletti, ed., Structures and Beyond: The
Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 223–251.
Sloan, K. (1991) “Quantifier-Wh Interaction,” More Papers on Wh-movement, MIT Working Papers
in Linguistics 15, 219–237.
Takano, Y. (2002). “Surprising Constituents,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11, 243–301.
Takano, Y. (2010) “Scrambling and Control,” Linguistic Inquiry 41, 83-110.
Takita, K. (to appear) “VP-scrambling, Linearization Preservation, and the Theories of Control,”
NELS 40.
Ura, H. (1998) “Checking, Economy, and Copy-Raising in Igbo,” Linguistic Analysis 28, 67–88.

-482- 482 -ON (IM)POSSIBLE N’-DELETION WITHIN PPs *Kensuke Takita and Nobu Goto
Mie University

1.

Introduction

It is well-known that many languages allow N’-deletion, where a part of a noun phrase tobe elided under identity with its antecedent (Jackendoff 1971, Lobeck 1990, 1995, Saito &Murasugi 1990, among others).1 Some concrete examples are given in (1). In (1a), which isfrom English, the elided element, indicated by the symbol , is interpreted as wine.
(1)a.

I like Bill’s wine, but Max’s  is even better.

b.

Taroo-no taido-ga
yoi ippou Hanako-no -ga
yokunai (koto)
Taroo-Gen attitude-Nom good while Hanako-Gen -Nom not.good (fact(based on Jackendoff 1971:28)‘(lit.) (the fact that) Taroo’s attitude is good while Hanako’s  is not good’As for Japanese, since Saito & Murasugi (1990), examples like (1b) have been taken as
evidence for its existence in this language (see also Saito, Lin & Murasugi 2008, Watanabe
2010, Takahashi 2011 for more recent arguments).
The main empirical focus of this paper is the case of N’-deletion taking place within PPs.
Some potential examples of such PP-internal N’-deletion found in the previous literature are
given in (2). As far as we can tell, not many cases have been systematically examined in theliterature, but their grammaticality indicates that N’-deletion seems to be possible within PPs.
(2)a.

Tureck’s performance of Bach on the piano doesn’t please me as much as Glenn
Gould’s .
(based on Jackendoff 1971:31)* This paper is a revised and extended version of Takita & Goto (to appear). We thank theparticipants of Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 6, held at ZAS, Berlin, in September 2012,
where an earlier version of this paper was presented, and Koichi Otaki, Mamoru Saito, Masahiko
Takahashi, Masaya Yoshida, and Hideaki Yamashita for their valuable comments and suggestions. Allerrors are our own responsibility.
1

In this paper, the term N’-deletion is used without any theoretical commitment. For instance, as we
see in the following sections, what is elided in the relevant construction is not a bar-level projection,
N’. In addition to this, we abstract away from the issue of how to implement ellipsis, although we
represent ellipsis in terms of deletion.

-483-

2008

b.

2012







[ Kyoo-no ondo]-wa[[ kinoo-no
] yorimo] takai
today-Gen temperature-Top yesterday-Gen
than
high
(lit.) Today’s temperature is higher than yesterday’s ’(based on Saito, Lin & Murasugi 2008:255)

Providing more controlled examples in the following sections, however, we show that there
are certain environments where PP-internal N’-deletion is blocked. Then, we propose ananalysis that can accommodate this novel observation, discussing some theoretical
implications.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 is devoted to providing the novel
observation regarding PP-internal N’-deletion. Section 3 offers the analysis of the data. In
Section 4, we turn our attention to the cases involving Case-markers, instead of postpositions,and extend the proposed analysis to such cases. Section 5 concludes this paper, discussing
some implications.
2.

Observations

Before jumping into the crucial examples of PP-internal N’-deletion, let us introduce
some background on N’-deletion in general. Under the standard analysis of N’-deletion (Saito& Murasugi 1990, Lobeck 1990, 1995), the relevant part of (1b) is analyzed as having a
structure like (3a), where D0 licenses ellipsis of its complement, namely NP (indicated byshading). As for PP-internal N’-deletion, its availability is not so surprising if we can assume
a structure like (3b) for (2b), because P0 has no local relationship with the NP inside the DP
so that it should not disrupt ellipsis. The grammaticality of (4b) confirms this point (note thatthe examples in (4) are more appropriately controlled than ones like (2) in that both theantecedent and the target clauses contain PPs).2

2

Following Saito & Murasugi (1990) and others, the abstract noun koogeki ‘attack’ is used to avoid
the possibility of the pronominal use of no (which roughly corresponds to one in English), since thepronominal no cannot refer to abstract nouns (Okutsu 1974, Kamio 1983, Murasugi 1991). Takahashi(2011:143) provides the following example to show that the pronominal no cannot refer to koogeki‘attack’ (see also Arimoto & Murasugi 2005:174).
(i)* Taroo-no koogeki-wa totemo tuyoi no datta
Taroo-Gen attack-Top verystrong one was‘Taroo’s attack was a very strong one’-484- 484 -On (Im)possible N’-deletion within PPs (K. Takita and N. Goto)

(3)

a.

DP
Hanako-no
NP
NP

b.

PP

D’

P0

DP
D0

kinoo-no

taido
taid
ta
aido
ido
id
do

D’

NP
NP

yorimo
D0

ondo
o
on
ndo
n
nd
do
d
o
(4)

a.

Taroo-wa [PP [ kaseizin-e-nokoogeki] de] kunsyoo-omoratta
Taroo-Top
Martians-to-Gen attack
with decoration-Acc received‘(lit.) Taroo received a decoration [with [an attack to Martians]]’b.

] de] medaru-o moratta
Hanako-wa [PP [ kinseizin-e-no
Hanako-Top
Venusians-to-Gen
with medal-Acc received‘(lit.) Hanako received a medal [with [ to Venusians]]’

In the rest of this section, however, we show that N’-deletion within PPs is indeed
blocked in certain syntactic contexts, despite the fact that it is generally possible. To be more
specific, we claim that N’-deletion is blocked if both of the following two conditions are
satisfied: (i) A quantifier functions as a remnant of N’-deletion; (ii) the postposition following
the ellipsis site is different from the one in the antecedent.
Let us consider the examples in (5) and (6). (5a) is the antecedent for (5b-d), which
involve N’-deletion within PPs. In (5b), the postposition following the ellipsis site is identicalto the one in the antecedent (5a). On the other hand, (5c-d) involve the postpositions which
are different from the one in the antecedent. The fact that (5b-d) are all grammatical suggeststhat N’-deletion is possible in these examples.
(5)a.

Kinseizin-wa [ kinoo-no
kaseizin-no koogeki kara] seikansita
Venusians-Top yesterday-Gen Martians-Gen attack from survived‘(lit.) Venusians survived [from yesterday’s attack by Martians]’b.

Suiseizin-wa [ kyoo-no  kara] toosoosita
Mercurians-Top today-Gen
from run.away‘(lit.) Mercurians run away [from today’s ]’c.

Suiseizin-wa [ kyoo-no  e] taiousita
Mercurians-Top today-Gen
to responded‘(lit.) Mercurians responded [to today’s ]’-485- 485 -

2008

d.

2012









Suiseizin-wa [ kyoo-no  de] hiheisita
Mercurians-Top today-Gen
with got.exhausted‘(lit.) Mercurians got exhausted [with today’s ]’

That is, N’-deletion is possible even when the postposition following the N’-deletion site isdifferent from its counterpart in the antecedent in cases like (5). Nonetheless, a contrast
emerges if remnants are changed into quantifiers, as in (6).3(6)

a.

Kinseizin-wa [ subete-no kaseizin-no koogeki kara] seikansita
Venusians-Top all-Gen
Martians-Gen attack from survived‘(lit.) Venusians survived [from all attacks by Martians]’b.

Suiseizin-wa [ hotondo  kara] toosoosita
Mercurians-Top mostfrom run.away‘(lit.) Mercurians run away [from most ]’c. * Suiseizin-wa [ hotondo  e] taiousita
Mercurians-Top mostto responded‘(lit.) Mercurians responded [to most ]’
d. *Suiseizin-wa [ hotondo  de] hiheisita
Mercurians-Top mostwith got.exhausted‘(lit.) Mercurians got exhausted [with most ]’(6b), which involves the postposition identical to the one in (6a), is still grammatical, while(6c-d), which involve different postpositions, are ungrammatical.4
The contrast becomes clearer if the examples in (5) and (6) are modified as follows:(7)a.

Kinseizin-wa [ kaseizin-no kinoo-no
koogeki kara] seikansita
Venusians-Top Martians-Gen yesterday-Gen attack from survived‘(lit.) Venusians survived [from yesterday’s attack by Martians]’3

Although Saito & Murasugi (1990) and Saito, Lin & Murasugi (2008) argue that adjuncts do notcount as legitimate N’-deletion remnants, Takahashi (2011) provides several grammatical cases of N’deletion with adjunct remnants (see also Kadowaki 2005, Abe 2006, and Watanabe 2010).
4

The linking element no must be absent for quantifiers to qualify legitimate N’-deletion remnants(Watanabe 2010), but the contrast between (6b) and (6c-d) suggests that its absence is not the sourceof the ungrammaticality of the latter. That is, if the absence of no makes (6c-d) ungrammatical, (6b)should be also ungrammatical, contrary to fact.

-486- 486 -On (Im)possible N’-deletion within PPs (K. Takita and N. Goto)b.

Suiseizin-wa [ doseizin-no kyoo-no  kara] toosoosita
Mercurians-Top Saturnians today-Gen
from run.away‘(lit.) Mercurians run away [from today’s  by Saturnians]’c.

Suiseizin-wa [ doseizin-no kyoo-no  e] taiousita
Mercurians-Top Saturnians today-Gen
to responded‘(lit.) Mercurians responded [to today’s  by Saturnians]’d.

Suiseizin-wa [ doseizin-no kyoo-no  de] hiheisita
Mercurians-Top Saturnians today-Gen
with got.exhausted‘(lit.) Mercurians got exhausted [with today’s  by Saturnians]’

(8)

a.

Kinseizin-wa [ kaseizin-no subete-no koogeki kara] seikansita
Venusians-Top Martians-Gen all-Gen
attack from survived‘(lit.) Venusians survived [from all attacks by Martians]’b.

Suiseizin-wa [ doseizin-no hotondo  kara] toosoosita
Mercurians-Top Saturnians mostfrom run.away‘(lit.) Mercurians run away [from most  by Saturnians]’c. * Suiseizin-wa [ doseizin-no hotondo  e] taiousita
Mercurians-Top Saturnians mostto responded‘(lit.) Mercurians responded [to most  by Saturnians]’d. *Suiseizin-wa [ doseizin-no hotondo  de] hiheisita
Mercurians-Top Saturnians mostwith got.exhausted‘(lit.) Mercurians got exhausted [with most  by Saturnians]’(7a) is different from (5a) in that the order between kinoo-no ‘yesterday’ and kaseizin-no‘Martian’ is switched. Accordingly, doseizin-no ‘Saturnians’, which is contrasted withkaseizin-no ‘Mertians’, appears in front of kyoo-no ‘today’ in (7b-d). Similar changes are
made for the examples in (8). Since multiple genitive remnants are allowed in Japanese N’deletion (see Kimura 1994), the contrast between (7b-d) and (8b) on the one hand and (8c-d)on the other cannot be attributed to this factor. Since the speakers we have consulted find thecontrast between (7) and (8) much stronger than the one between (5) and (6), we mainly use
this word order pattern in the following discussion.55The string doseizin-no hotondo in (8c-d) has an alternative parse where the quantifier hotondo‘most’ functions as the head of the whole expression and doseizin-no ‘Saturnians’ modifies it.
Although (8c-d) are grammatical under this parse, it gives rise to a meaning which is clearly different
from the intended interpretation involving koogeki ‘attack’.

-487- 487 -

2008

2012







The examples in (9) illustrate the same point with slightly different lexical items. Again,
the minimal difference between (9a) and (9b) is the type of the N’-deletion remnant.
(9)a. * Kinzeizin-wa [ kaseizin-no subete-no koogeki e] hangekisita-si,
Venusians-Top {Martians-Gen all-Gen
attack to struck.back-andsuiseizin-wa[ doseizin-no
hotondo  kara] kaihukusita
Mercurians-Top Saturnians-Gen mostfrom recovered‘(lit.) Venusians struck back [at all attacks by Martians], and Mercurians
recovered [from most ]’b.

Kinseizin-wa [ kaseizin-no kinoo-no
koogeki e] hangekisita-si,
Venusians-Top Martians-Gen yesterday-Gen attack to struck.back-andsuiseizin-wa[ doseizin-no
kyoo-no  kara] kaihukusita
Mercurians-Top Saturnians-Gen today-Gen
from recovered‘(lit.) Venusians struck back [at yesterday’s attack by Martians], and Mercurians
recovered [from today’s ]’

Therefore, the pattern found in (5)/(6), (7)/(8), and (9) indicates that N’-deletion is indeed
blocked if both of the two conditions are satisfied, validating our claim made above. Note thatthese asymmetries with respect to the availability of N’-deletion is not expected under the
standard analysis of N’-deletion briefly reviewed at the outset of this section. In the next
section, we propose an analysis of the relevant observations.
3.

Proposals and Analysis

The analysis to be proposed in this section involves the following two crucial ingredients:(i) Takahashi’s (2011) analysis of N’-deletion, and (ii) a rigid identity requirement found inso-called V(erb)-stranding VP-ellipsis (McCloskey 1991, 2011, 2012, Goldberg 2005,
Gribanova to appear, among others). We first introduce these two, paving the way for ouranalysis.
It is also worth noting here that the construction where a quantifier heads a nominal expression
does not have to involve ellipsis. As shown in (i), such expressions can be used without any
antecedents.
(i)

Gakusei-no { nanninka / itibu / ooku / hotondo / daibubun / zenin} -ga siken-ni ukatta
student-Gen somepart many mostlarge.part all-Nom test-Dat passed‘Some/A part/Many/Most/A large part/All of the students passed the exam’

Suppose then that hotondo ‘most’ in (6c-d) is modified by pro, instead of overt expressions likegakusei-no ‘student’ in (i), and the null pronoun refers to kaseizin-no koogeki ‘attack by Martians’.
Then, the examples can have the interpretation which is hard to be distinguished from the intended
reading. We suggest that this makes (6c-d) slightly better than (8c-d) for many speakers.

-488- 488 -On (Im)possible N’-deletion within PPs (K. Takita and N. Goto)

Takahashi (2011) argues that in languages like Japanese, when an N’-deletion remnant is
a non-quantifier as in (10a) (repeated from (1b)), the whole nominal has a structure like (11a),where the functional head K(ase)0 dominating the Case-marker -ga licenses ellipsis of its
complement, namely, NP (see also Bokovi to appear). 6 On the other hand, when aquantifier functions as a remnant as in (10b), Q(uantifier)P is projected on top of the KP.
Takahashi (2011) further argues that K0 moves to Q0, and from there it licenses ellipsis of its
complement (i.e. KP), as schematically shown in (11b).
(10) a.

Taroo-no taido-ga
yoi ippou Hanako-no -ga
yokunai (koto)
Taroo-Gen attitude-Nom good while Hanako-Gen -Nom not.good (fact‘(lit.) (the fact that) Taroo’s attitude is good while Hanako’s is not good’b.

Sannin-no sensei-ga
kita ippou gonin -ga
kaetta (koto)
three.Cl-Gen teacher-Nom came while five.Cl -Nom left
(fact‘(lit.) (the fact that) three teachers came while five  left’(11) a.

KP
Hanako-no

b.
KP

QP
gonin

NP
NP

K0

taido
tai
ta
aid
aid
ido
do

-ga

Q’
Q0

KP
KP
NP
NP

K0

senseisseensens
nsseei
ei

t

Q0

-ga

Let us turn to the second ingredients, the rigid identity requirement. In languages like
Irish, objects can be missing in cases like (12a), although Irish is not a null-object language.
McCloskey (1991) argues that Irish allows VP-ellipsis to target a VP whose head has
evacuated the VP by head-movement, as schematically shown in (12b) (see also Doron 1999,
Goldberg 2005 for Hebrew and Gribanova to appear for Russian). Since the missing object is
contained in the elided VP, the resulting sentence appears to have a null object.
(12) a.

Dúirt mé go [ gceannóinn é] agus [ cheannaigh ]
said I C buy
it andbought‘I said that I would buy it and I did’6(based on McCloskey 1991:273)

Takahashi (2011) argues that in structures like (11a), the N’-deletion remnants (Hanako-no in thiscase) are always adjoined to KP, but our analysis does not hinge on this point. Hence, we abstract
away from the structural position of N’-deletion remnants in the following discussion.

-489- 489 -

2008

b.

2012









Dúirt mé go [IP gceannóinni [VP pro ti é]] agus [IP cheannaighj [VP pro tj é]]This kind of VP-ellipsis is dubbed as V-stranding VP-ellipsis.
One important property of V-stranding VP-ellipsis extensively discussed by Goldberg(2005) is that the remnant, namely the stranded verb, of the target clause must be identical tothe verb of the antecedent to some extent. For instance, in (13a), the relevant verbs are not
identical to each other, and the sentence cannot have a null object (see also McCloskey 2011
for more examples).
(13) a * [Léigh mé an dán] ach níor [ thuig]read I
the poem but notunderstand‘(intended) I read the poem, but I didn’t understand it’(based on Goldberg 2005:168)b. *[IP Léighi [VP mé ti an dán]] ach níor [IP thuigj [VP mé tj an dán]]Goldberg (2005) argues (13a) is ungrammatical because ellipsis of VP depicted in (13b) isblocked due to the mismatch between the verb extracted from the ellipsis site and its
counterpart in the antecedent.
Armed with these assumptions, let us now turn to our observations made in Section 2.
Based upon Takahashi’s (2011) analysis of N’-deletion, we propose that (at least certain)
postpositions in Japanese belong to the category Kase. Then, the relevant parts of theexamples in (6) can be analyzed as having the structures given in (14).
(14) a.

Antecedent: [QP subete-no [KP [NP kaseizin-no koogeki] tK0] Q0+[K0 kara]](= (6a))(= (6b))b.

Target:[QP hotondo [KP [NP kaseizin-no koogeki] tK0] Q0+[K0 kara]]c.

Target:*[QP hotondo [KP [NP kaseizin-no koogeki] tK0] Q0+[K0 e/de]] (= (6c/d))

To capture the observations in question, we need to block the ellipsis only in (14c).
Generalizing the rigid identity requirement from cases concerning verbs extracted from
ellipsis sites to cases concerning heads extracted from ellipsis sites, we claim that the patterndepicted in (14) can be captured as an effect of the rigid identity requirement. To be more
specific, in (14c), the head extracted from the ellipsis site (namely e ‘to’ or de ‘with’) isdifferent from the one in the antecedent (namely kara ‘from’), hence ellipsis of the KP isblocked. On the other hand, the head extracted from the ellipsis site is identical to the one in
the antecedent, so that ellipsis of KP is allowed.

-490- 490 -On (Im)possible N’-deletion within PPs (K. Takita and N. Goto)

By contrast, there is no extraction of heads in the case of (5), as shown in (15), making
the rigid identity requirement irrelevant.
(15) a.

Antecedent: [KP kinoo-no [NP kaseizin-no koogeki] kara](= (5a))b.

Target:[KP kinoo-no [NP kaseizin-no koogeki] kara](= (5b))c.

Target:[KP kinoo-no [NP kaseizin-no koogeki] e/de](= (5c/d))

Since the possibility of ellipsis of NP is not affected both in (15b) and (15c), the absence ofthe contrast between (5b) and (5c-d) can be captured.
The contrast found in (7) and (8) and in (9), which have a slightly different word orderpattern from (5) and (6), can be accommodated in a similar way. Let us take (9) as arepresentative. Assuming that kaseizin-no ‘Martians’ and doseizin-no ‘Saturnians’ are basegenerated within NP and moved to a higher position, the relevant parts of (9) are analyzed ashaving structures in (16).
(16) a.

Antecedent: [QP kaseizin-noi subete-no [KP [NP ti koogeki] tK0] Q0+[K0 e]]
Target:b.

*[QP doseizin-noj hotondo [KP [NP tj koogeki] tK0] Q0+[K0 kara]] (= (9a))

Antecedent: [KP kaseizin-noi kinoo-no [NP ti koogeki] [K0 e]]

Target:[KP doseizin-noj kyoo-no [NP tj koogeki] [K0 kara]](= (9b))

Ellipsis of the KP is licensed in (16b) but not in (16a), because the rigid identity requirement
is relevant only for the former.7
In this way, our analysis supports Takahashi’s (2011) analysis, gaining wider empirical
coverage. Furthermore, it suggests that the rigid identity requirement is operative not only ina clausal domain but also in a nominal domain, implying that it is not just a property specific7

It should be noted here that the rigid identity requirement is operative only in extraction of heads
out of ellipsis sites, because the difference between kaseizin-no ‘Martians’ and doseizin-no‘Saturnians’ does not affect the possibility of ellipsis; otherwise, there would be no contrast between(7) and (8) and between (9a) and (9b). That is, there is an asymmetry between phrasal elements andheads with respect to extractions out of ellipsis sites. In fact, it is well-known that in other ellipticalconstructions such as VP-ellipsis and sluicing, an XP which is different from its counterpart in theantecedent can be readily extracted from ellipsis sites. To derive this difference between heads andphrasal elements, Goldberg (2005) suggests that head-movement but not phrasal movement undergoes
obligatory reconstruction, assuming that the former is not a narrow syntactic operation (cf. Chomsky
2000, Boeckx & Stjepanovi 2001, among others). See also McCloskey (2012) and Takita (2012) for
other attempts to derive the difference.

-491- 491 -

2008

2012









to V-stranding VP-ellipsis but a more general property of ellipsis involving extraction ofheads.8
4.

Further Data

In this section, we expand the data set to cases involving Case-markers, and discuss how the
proposed analysis can accommodate such cases. Specifically, we argue that the proposed
analysis can indeed accommodate them by claiming that the nature of the rigid identity
requirement is essentially semantic. Then, we show that various predictions made by thismodification of the proposed analysis are indeed borne out.
First consider the examples in (17). In (17a), N’-deletion targets an accusative object,taking a nominative subject as the antecedent, and in (17b), it targets a nominative subject,taking an accusative object as the antecedent.9(17) a.

[ Kaseizin-no subete-no koogeki-ga] kinseizin-onayamaseta-ga,
Martians-Gen all-Gen
attack-Nom Venusians-Acc annoyedsuiseizin-wa[ doseizin-no
hotondo -o] yarisugosita
Mercurians-Top Saturnians-Gen most-Acc withstood‘(lit.) [All attacks by Martians] annoyed Venusians, but Mercurians withstood[most  by Saturnians]’b.

Suiseizin-wa [ kaseizin-no subete-no koogeki-o] yarisugosita-ga,
Mercurians-Top Martians-Gen all-Gen
attack-Acc withstood-but[ doseizin-no hotondo -ga] kinseizin-onayamaseta
Saturnians most-Nom Venusians-Acc annoyed‘(lit.) Mercurians withstood [all attacks by Martians], but [most  by Saturnians
annoyed Venusians]’

The grammaticality of these examples indicates that N’-deletion is indeed possible in thesecases, even though the deleted noun is modified by the quantifier hotondo ‘most’, and theCase-maker following the ellipsis site is different from the one in the antecedent.
The same point can be shown by using so-called nominative object constructions. As
shown in (18), Japanese allows an object to be marked with either the accusative Case-marker
or the nominative Case-maker when elements like -tai ‘want’ attach to the main verb, forming
8

See also Takita (2010), who argues that the rigid identity requirement is also operative in what iscalled V(erb)-stranding sluicing.
9

Given the analysis proposed in Section 3, we assume that kaseizin-no ‘Martians’ and doseizin-no‘Saturnians’ are moved from the projection of koogeki ‘attack’, but we do not represent this point in(17) and the subsequent examples for simplicity.

-492- 492 -On (Im)possible N’-deletion within PPs (K. Takita and N. Goto)a complex predicate (see, among others, Sano 1985, Tada 1992, Koizumi 1994, 1998, Takano
2003, Nomura 2005, and Takahashi 2010, 2011).
(18)

Kinseizin-wa kaseizin-no
koogeki-o/-ga
yarisugosi-tai
Venusians-Top Martians-Gen attack-Acc/-Nom withstand-want‘Venusians want to withstand Martian’s attack’

The examples in (19) and (20), where the objects can be marked either accusative or
nominative, show that N’-deletion is possible no matter whether the Case-maker attached tothe deleted noun is identical to the one attached to its antecedent or not.
(19) a.

Kinseizin-wa [ kaseizin-no subete-no koogeki-o] husegi-tai
Venusians-Top Martians-Gen all-Gen
attack-Acc stop-want‘(lit.) Venusians want to stop [all attacks by Martians]’b.

Suiseizin-wa [ doseizin-no
hotondo -ga/-o]yarisugosi-tai
Mercurians-Top Saturnians-Gen most-Nom/-Acc withstand-want‘(lit.) Mercurians want to withstand [most  by Saturnians]’(20) a.

Kinseizin-wa [ kaseizin-no subete-no koogeki-ga] husegi-tai
Venusians-Top Martians-Gen all-Gen
attack-Nom stop-want‘(lit.) Venusians want to stop [all attacks by Martians]’b.

Suiseizin-wa [ doseizin-no
hotondo -o/-ga]
yarisugosi-tai
Mercurians-Top Saturnians-Gen most-Acc/-Nom withstand-want‘(lit.) Mercurians want to withstand [most  by Saturnians]’

Under the analysis proposed in Section 3, the relevant parts of examples like (17a) should
be analyzed as having structures like (21).
(21)

Antecedent: [QP kaseizin-noi subete-no [KP [NP ti koogeki] tK0] Q0+[K0 -ga]]Target:[QP doseizin-noj hotondo [KP [NP tj koogeki] tK0] Q0+[K0 -o]]Given the rigid identity requirement, N’-deletion should be blocked since the headextracted from the deleted KP is different from the one in the antecedent, contrary to fact.
Then, we propose to accommodate these prima facie counterexamples by resorting toGoldberg’s (2005) original insight about the nature of the rigid identity requirement: It
follows from the general condition that deleted XP to be identical to its antecedent in their
meanings. Since (structural) Case-markers are semantically vacuous, unlike postpositions, it-493- 493 -

2008

2012









follows that their differences do not affect the possibility of N’-deletion.10 Put differently, thedeleted KP in (21) can be taken as identical to the KP in the antecedent due to the semantic
vacuity of Case-markers. On the other hand, for instance in (16a), the deleted KP cannot be
regarded as identical to its antecedent KP because the former has the meaning of the NP
kaseizin-no koogeki ‘attack by Martians’ plus the meaning of kara ‘from’ while the latter has
the meaning of the NP plus the meaning of e ‘to’.
This modification then leads us to the following predictions: Suppose that a quantifierfunctions as the N’-deletion remnant; then, (i) N’-deletion is allowed for the cases involving apair of postpositions which are morphologically distinct from but semantically identical toeach other; (ii) conversely, N’-deletion is not allowed for the cases involving a pair of
postpositions which are morphologically identical to but semantically distinct from eachother. These predictions are indeed borne out, as shown in (22) and (23).
(22) a.

Kinseizin-wa [ kaseizin-no subete-no koogeki yori] seikansita
Venusians-Top Martians-Gen all-Gen
attackfrom survived‘(lit.) Venusians survived [from all attcks by Martians]’b.

Suiseizin-wa [ doseizin-no
hotondo  kara] toosoosita
Mercurians-Top Saturnians-Gen mostfrom run.away‘(lit.) Mercurians run away [from most  by Saturnians]’(23) a.

Kinseizin-wa [ kaseizin-e-no subete-no koogeki de] misairu-de hangekisita
Venusians-Top Martian-to-Gen all-Gen
attack at missile-with struck.back‘(lit.) Venusians struck back [at all attacks to Martians] with missiles’

betu-no tatakai-de [ doseizin-e-no
hotondo  de]b. *Suiseizin-wa
Mercurians-Top another battle-at
Saturnians-to-Gen mostwithkunsyoo-omorattadecoration-acc received‘(lit.) Mercurians received a decoration [with most  by Saturnians] at anotherbattle’First, (22a) involves the postposition yori, while (22b) does the postposition kara. Althoughtheses postpositions are morphologically different, they are essentially synonymous: Both ofthem have the meaning of ‘from’. 11 Hence N’-deletion is allowed, rending (22b)grammatical. Turing now to (23), the postposition de is attached to the locative expression in
10

Although we are claiming that the elements traditionally called “postpositions” are indeed of thecategory K, we keep calling them postpositions for ease of reference.
11

We thank an anonymous reviewer of FAJL6 for pointing out the synonymy of yori and kara.

-494- 494 -On (Im)possible N’-deletion within PPs (K. Takita and N. Goto)(23a), while the same morpheme marks the instrumental expression in (23b). Hence, N’deletion is blocked in (23b), despite of the morphological identity of the postpositions.
Finally, let us consider (24) and (25). In (24), the accusative-marked nominal antecedes
the postposition-marked one, and in (25) the antecedent-target relation is reversed.
(24) a.

Kinseizin-ga[ kaseizin-no kinoo-no
koogeki-o] hihansita ippou,
Venusians-Nom Martians-Gen yesterday-Gen attack-Acc criticized whilesuiseizin-ga[ doseizin-no
kyoo-no -de] hiheisita
Mercurians-Nom Saturnians-Gen today-Gen -with got.exhausted‘(lit.) While Venusians criticized [yesterday’s attack by Martians], Mercurians got
exhausted [with today’s  by Saturnians]’[ kaseizin-no subete-no koogeki-o] hihansita ippou,
b. *Kinseizin-ga
Venusians-Nom Martians-Gen all-Gen
attack-Acc criticized whilesuiseizin-ga[ doseizin-no
hotondo -de] hiheisita
Mercurians-Nom Saturnians-Gen most-with got.exhausted‘(lit.) While Venusians criticized [all attacks by Martians], Mercurians got
exhausted [with most  by Saturnians]’(25) a.

Kinseizin-ga[ kaseizin-no kinoo-no
koogeki-de] hiheisita
Venusians-Nom Martians-Gen yesterday-Gen attack-with got.exhausted
ippou, suiseizin-ga[ doseizin-no
kyoo-no -o] hihansita
while Mercurians-Nom Saturnians-Gen today-Gen -Acc criticized‘(lit.) While Venusians got exhausted [with yesterday’s attack by Martians],
Mercurians criticized [today’s  by Saturnians]’[ kaseizin-no subete-no koogeki-de] hiheisita
b. *Kinseizin-ga
Venusians-Nom Martians-Gen all-Gen
attack-with got.exhausted
ippou, suiseizin-ga[ doseizin-no
hotondo -o] hihansita
while Mercurians-Nom Saturnians-Gen most-Acc criticized‘(lit.) While Venusians got exhausted [with all attacks by Martians], Mercurians
criticized [most  by Saturnians]’
The contrast between the a-examples and the b-examples indicates that N’-deletion is blocked
only when a quantifier functions as a remnant. The examples in (26) and (27) show the same
point with a different pair of Case-marker and postposition.

-495- 495 -2008(26) a.

2012









Kinseizin-ga [ kaseizin-no kinoo-no
koogeki-ga] husegi-takatta ippou,
Venusians-Nom Martians-Gen yesterday-Gen attack-Nom stop-wanted whilesuiseizin-ga[ doseizin-no
kyoo-no -kara] nige-takatta
Mercurians-Nom Saturnians-Gen today-Gen -from escape-wanted‘(lit.) While Venusians wanted to stop [yesterday’s attack by Martians], Mercurians
wanted to escape [from today’s  by Saturnians]’[ kaseizin-no subete-no koogeki-ga] husegi-takatta ippou,
b. *Kinseizin-ga
Venusians-Nom Martians-Gen all-Gen
attack-Nom stop-wanted whilesuiseizin-ga[ doseizin-no
hotondo -kara] nige-takatta
Mercurians-Nom Saturnians-Gen most-from escape-wanted‘(lit.) While Venusians wanted to stop [all attacks by Martians], Mercurians wanted
to escape [from most  by Saturnians]’(27) a.

Kinseizin-ga[ kaseizin-no kinoo-no
koogeki-kara] nige-takatta
Venusians-Nom Martians-Gen yesterday-Gen attack-from
escape-wanted
ippou, suiseizin-ga[ doseizin-no
kyoo-no -ga] husegi-takatta
while Mercurians-Nom Saturnians-Gen today-Gen -Nom stop-wanted‘(lit.) While Venusians wanted to escape [from yesterday’s attack by Martians],
Mercurians wanted to stop [today’s  by Saturnians]’[ kaseizin-no subete-no koogeki-kara] nige-takatta
b. *Kinseizin-ga
Venusians-Nom Martians-Gen all-Gen
attack-from
escape-wanted
ippou, suiseizin-ga[ doseizin-no
hotondo -ga] husegi-takatta
while Mercurians-Nom Saturnians-Gen most-Nom stop-wanted‘(lit.) While Venusians wanted to escape [from all attacks by Martians],
Mercurians wanted to stop [most  by Saturnians]’
These observations also fall within what is predicted by the proposed analysis. Taking(24) as a representative, we claim that the relevant parts of have the following structures:(28) a.

Antecedent: [KP kaseizin-noi kinoo-no [NP ti koogeki] [K0 o]]Target:[KP doseizin-noj kyoo-no [NP tj koogeki] [K0 de]]-496- 496 -(= (24a))On (Im)possible N’-deletion within PPs (K. Takita and N. Goto)b.

Antecedent: [QP kaseizin-noi subete-no [KP [NP ti koogeki] tK0] Q0+[K0 o]]Target:*[QP doseizin-noj hotondo [KP [NP tj koogeki] tK0] Q0+[K0 de]] (= (24b))

In (28a), what is elided is NP, and no head is extracted from the NP, so that ellipsis isallowed. On the other hand, what is elided (28b) is KP. Since the postposition de ‘with’ have
moved to Q0, the rigid identity requirement dictates whether the elided KP is semantically
identical to the antecedent KP. In this case, the antecedent KP is semantically equivalent to its
complement NP, due to the semantic-vacuity of the accusative Case-marker. On the other
hand, the elided KP has the meaning of its complement NP and that of de ‘with’, so that theelided KP does not count identical to the antecedent. Therefore, ellipsis is blocked, giving riseto the ungrammaticality of (24b).
To sum up, the proposed analysis can accommodate the intricate patterns of N’-deletion
within PPs. In particular, we argued that the idea that the rigid identity requirement demands
semantic identity between the elided element and its antecedent plays a crucial role.
5.

Conclusion

In this paper, we provided a novel set of data regarding N’-deletion within PPs.
Specifically, we showed that N’-deletion within PPs is blocked, although it is generally
possible, if a quantifier functions as the N’-deletion remnant, and the postposition following
the deleted noun is different from the corresponding postposition in the antecedent. Then,proposing that certain postpositions in Japanese belong to the category Kase, we argued that
our observations can be captured as an instance of the rigid identity requirement found in Vstranding VP-ellipsis, based upon Takahashi’s (2011) analysis of N’-deletion. We thenexamined the cases involving Case-markers, and argued for the idea that claims the rigid
identity requirement is essentially semantic. Finally, we offered sets of further data which
support the proposed analysis.
Let us conclude this paper by discussing the implications of our analysis. First, ouranalysis supports Takahashi’s (2011) analysis with a wider empirical coverage. Second, it
follows that not only lexical heads like V0 but also functional ones like K0 are subject to therigid identity requirement, as long as they are contentful (see also Takita 2010 for theargument that T0 is subject to the rigid identity requirement). Finally, N’-deletion can serve asa new diagnostic test that distinguishes Case-markers from postpositions: From a broader
perspective, this further implies that the distinction between Case-markers and postpositions
is necessary (Kuroda 1965, Miyagawa 1989, Sadakane & Koizumi 1995), which issometimes overlooked in traditional and/or descriptive Japanese linguistics.

-497- 497 -

2008

2012









References
Abe, J. (2006) “Licensing Condition on Ellipsis.” In A Minimalist View of Components in Generative
Grammar, a report for Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research, 1–65.
Arimoto, M. and K. Murasugi (2005) Shouoo-to Sakujo [Anaphora and Deletion], Kenkyusha,
Tokyo.
Boeckx, C. and S. Stjepanovi (2001) “Head-ing Toward PF,” Linguistic Inquiry 32, 345–355.
Bokovi , . (To appear) “Now I’m a Phase, Now I’m Not a Phase: On the Variability of Phases with
Extraction and Ellipsis,” Linguistic Inquiry.
Chomsky, N. (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework.” In R. Martin, J. Uriagereka, and D.
Michaels, eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, MIT
Press, Cambridge, Mass., 89–155.
Doron, E. (1999) “V-Movement and VP Ellipsis.” In S. Lappin and E. Benmamoun, eds., Fragments:
Studies in Ellipsis and Gapping, Oxford University Press, New York, 124–140.
Goldberg, L. (2005) Verb-Stranding VP-Ellipsis: A Cross-Linguistic Study, Ph.D. dissertation, McGill
University.
Gribanova, V. (To appear) “Verb-Stranding Verb Phrase Ellipsis and the Structure of Russian Verbal
Complex,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31.
Jackendoff, R. (1971) “Gapping and Related Rules,” Linguistic Inquiry 2, 21–36.
Kadowaki, M. (2005) “N’-Ellipsis Reconsidered.” In Y. Otsu, ed., Proceedings of the 6th Tokyo
Conference on Psycholinguistics, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo, 191-215.
Kamio, A. (1983) “Meishiku-no Kouzou [The structure of NP].” In K. Inoue, ed., Nihongo-no Kihon
Kouzou [Basic Structures of Japanese], Sanseidou, Tokyo, 77–126.
Kimura, N. (1994) “Multiple Specifiers and Long Distance Anophor.” In M. Koizumi and H. Ura,
eds., Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 1, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 24,
Cambridge, Mass., 159–178.
Koizumi, M. (1994) “Nominative Objects: The Role of TP in Japanese.” In M. Koizumi and H. Ura,
eds., Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 1, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 24,
Cambridge, Mass., 211–230.
Koizumi, M. (1998) “Remarks on Nominative Objects,” Journal of Japanese Linguistics 16, 39-66.
Kuroda, S. (1965) Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language, Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT.
Lobeck, A. (1990) “Functional Heads as Proper Governors,” Proceedings of NELS 20, 348–362.
Lobeck, A. (1995) Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing, and Identification, Oxford University Press,
New York.
McCloskey, J. (1991) “Clause Structure, Ellipsis and Proper Government in Irish,” Lingua 85, 259–
302.
McCloskey, J. (2011) “The Shape of Irish Clauses.” In Andrew Carnie, ed., Formal Approaches to
Celtic Linguistics, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, 143–178.
McCloskey, J. (2012) “Polarity, Ellipsis, and the Limits of Identity in Irish.” Paper presented at The
15th Workshop of the International Research Project on Comparative Syntax and Language
Acquisition, Nanzan University.
Miyagawa, S. (1989) Syntax and Semantics 22: Structure and Case Marking in Japanese, Academic
Press, San Diego.
Murasugi, K. (1991) Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability and
Acquisition, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Nomura, M. (2005) Nominative Case and AGREE(ment), Ph.D. dissertation, University ofConnecticut.

-498- 498 -On (Im)possible N’-deletion within PPs (K. Takita and N. Goto)

Okutsu, K. (1974) Seisei Nihon Bumpooron: Meishiku-no Koozoo [Japanese Generative Grammar:
The Structure of Noun Phrases], Taishukan, Tokyo.
Sadakane, K. and M. Koizumi (1995) “On the Nature of the ‘Dative’ Particle Ni in Japanese,”
Linguistics 33, 5–33.
Saito, M., T.-H. J. Lin and K. Murasugi (2008) “N’-Ellipsis and the Structure of Noun Phrases in
Chinese and Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17, 247–271.
Saito, M. and K. Murasugi (1990) “N’-Deletion in Japanese: A Preliminary Study.” In H. Hoji, ed.,Japanese/Korean Linguistics 1, CSLI Publications, Stanford, 285–301.
Sano, M. (1985) “LF Movement in Japanese,” Descriptive and Applied Linguistics 18, International
Christian University, Tokyo, 245–259.
Tada, H. (1992) “Nominative Objects in Japanese,” Journal of Japanese Linguistics 14, 91–108.
Takahashi, M. (2010) “Case, Phases, and Nominative/Accusative Conversion in Japanese,” Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 20, 319–355.
Takahashi, M. (2011) Some Theoretical Consequences of Case-Marking in Japanese, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Takano, Y. (2003) “Nominative Objects in Japanese Complex Predicate Constructions: A Prolepsis
Analysis,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21, 779–834.
Takita, K. (2010) “V-Stranding Sluicing in Japanese and Its Implications,” ms., Tohoku University,
Sendai. [To appear in Proceedings of NELS 41. University of Massachusetts, Amherst:
GLSA]
Takita, K. (2012) “On XP/X0-Asymmetries in Extractions from Ellipsis Sites.” Paper presented at The
15th Workshop of the International Research Project on Comparative Syntax and Language
Acquisition, Nanzan University.
Takita, K. and N. Goto (To appear) “Some Asymmetries in Japanese N’-Deletion and Their
Theoretical Implications.” In Uli Sauerland and Kazuko Yatsushiro, eds., Proceedings of theFormal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 6, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics,
Cambridge, Mass.
Watanabe, A. (2010) “Notes on Nominal Ellipsis and the Nature of No and Classifiers in Japanese,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19, 61–74.

-499- 499 -%&!  "!

 
 



$
#' $

   
%&!

